- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [GM] Draft RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016
by Brandon Butterworth 25 Mar '15

25 Mar '15

> From: Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> > Agree. We're focusing too much on the money side here. I think the > objections to the charging scheme have nothing to do with money. It is > all about having some downside to keeping unused resources, and the > default way we got to think about that is to charge money for it. People will not agree to a large enough fee to make that work, and if the resource is scarce more so, people have seen the v4 market looming Take PI charging as an example, the money is trivial, the real cost was in the enforced paper trail that consumed way more resources to sort out. I don't know the stats (happy to be shown otherwise) on how many were recovered at the cost of messing how many legit owners around, I suspect very few Time wasted fiddling with legacy v4 better spent rolling out v6. > The address policy WG wants to make policies easy and simple, but > if they become too easy then abuse and negligence is feared so we > try to put a limit on that. The current trends is to do this by > making the NCC charge the holders It used to be you had to show a new AS advertised by two upstreams or you lost it, enough messing to discourage casual abuse brandon

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Gert Doering 26 Jan '15

26 Jan '15

Hi, On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 08:53:11AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote: > One way I believe this could be accomplished is that if you already > pay the NCC membership fee or a PI fee, then you automatically get a > reasonable quota of gratis ASNs. (Not automatic assignment of those > ASNs, but that you won't get a separate charge until you have requested > enough ASNs to exceed your quota.) This would work for me. Agreeing with Tore that this is not supposed to bring in additional revenue, and also not supposed to punish/hurt LIRs that make good use of their ASNs - but to be an incentive to return (or trade away) unused ASNs to make them used again, and to prevent useless hoarding which would burn NCC resources. Gert Doering -- RIPE member, and interested in good resource management -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

3 7

RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 Discussion
by Nigel Titley 24 Jan '15

24 Jan '15

Dear Colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board has closely followed the ASN discussion on the Address Policy Working Group mailing list. The issue of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme has been raised, so I'd like to give you an idea of the Board's thinking on this. We hope this will inform the discussion and also give sufficient time for members to give their feedback, which we will take into account when making a Charging Scheme 2016 proposal to present to the General Meeting (GM) in May this year. The issue of reintroducing a charge for ASNs was raised at the last GM in November 2014. You can follow the details of that discussion in the GM minutes: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/minutes-ripe-ncc-gen… This discussion, interesting though it was, did not result in a conclusive outcome on how the membership would like the Board to proceed with regard to ASNs. It also raised the issue of charging for PI address space. Another issue raised at the previous GM during the discussion on providing RIPE NCC services for Legacy Internet resource holders was that members can vote only to approve or reject the Charging Scheme as a whole and they cannot vote on individual aspects of the Charging Scheme. In trying to address the Charging Scheme-related issues raised, the Board would like to make two statements: Firstly, the Board would like to retain the current "one LIR, one fee" Charging Scheme model that was approved by the membership and which provides fairness, predictability and simplicity for RIPE NCC members. Secondly, the Board strongly believes that the Charging Scheme should be aligned with RIPE Policy. For this reason, there is a separate charge for PI resources that ensures alignment with ripe-452, "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region (2007-01)". With this in mind, the Board would like to offer two different proposals for the Charging Scheme 2016: 1. The Board can propose a Charging Scheme in advance of the May GM and have the membership discuss the proposal. The Board would take the discussion into account before proposing a final Charging Scheme to be voted on by the membership in May. or 2. The Board could take a two-step approach to the Charging Scheme. In May, members would vote on individual issues such as charging for ASNs. The result of the voting would then be used to create a Charging Scheme that would be voted on in the usual way by members at the November GM. The RIPE NCC Executive Board is appointed to represent the interests of the membership. For this reason, we encourage you to give us your feedback on these proposals so that the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2016 can come as close as possible to reflecting the wishes of the membership. You can discuss the proposal and related Charging Scheme issues on the Members Discuss mailing list (members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>) or you can contact the Board directly at exec-board(a)ripe.net <mailto:exec-board@ripe.net>. The next Executive Board meeting takes place on 19 March, so we would appreciate your feedback before that date. I will also copy this mail to the Address Policy Working Group mailing list to ensure all interested parties are aware of the Board's thinking. Best regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Paul Civati 23 Jan '15

23 Jan '15

(cc members-discuss) Mihnea-Costin Grigore <mgrigore(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as > of 5 February 2015. We believe this change will provide a more secure, > efficient website for our users. > > The www.ripe.net website has been available over HTTPS for some time > already, and we are now making it HTTPS-only for two reasons: to improve > the website's security, and because we plan to integrate RIPE NCC Access > (our single sign-on system) with www.ripe.net as part of our larger > website redesign project, which requires us to use HTTPS throughout the > site. Some observations spring to mind. 1. www.ripe.net is (as far as I can see - and I could be wrong - please correct me) primarily an information site, that is it provides publically available information to everyone/anyone. Therefore it does not largely transmit anything that needs to be secure and encrypted over SSL. 2. There have been far more security holes in https/TLS/SSL of recent than plain HTTP as far as I can tell. Therefore I would say that https is less secure unless you have sensitive information to transport. If my assertion (1) is correct then it would not seem beneficial to SSL proect www.ripe.net - indeed it may make it less secure. 3. Whilst I agree wholeheartedly that SSO is a good plan, in this case separation of the two different entities (information ie. www.ripe.net and admin ie. LIR portal) seems like a good idea. Of course (3) may break the desire for SSO. Or this may not really matter and no-one may really care. :) Regards, -Paul- -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com

7 6

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC website becoming HTTPS-only
by Sascha Luck [ml] 22 Jan '15

22 Jan '15

On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 03:37:41PM +0100, Mihnea-Costin Grigore wrote: >We plan to make the www.ripe.net website available over HTTPS only as I like the idea, everyone should do it. Would the NCC consider publishing a report on any unreachability issues encountered, once it's been https-only for a bit? This would be useful info for anyone else considering this move. rgds, Sascha Luck

1 0

BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 14 Jan '15

14 Jan '15

Hi When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. -- Shahin Gharghi

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

If they won't check, why do they ask? On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Arjan van der Oest < arjan.vanderoest(a)voiceworks.com> wrote: > Just insert two peers that are available in Iran as upstream. They will > not actually check with those peers. > > -- > Met vriendelijke groet, > > Arjan van der Oest > Lead Mobile Engineer > > Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere > Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 > Office : +31 36 7606656 > GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ > Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99 > > On 12 Jan 2015, at 13:48, Shahin Gharghi <ripe(a)rased.ir> wrote: > > Hi > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > -- > Shahin Gharghi > ---- > If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss > mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the > general page: > https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/ > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number
by Shahin Gharghi 12 Jan '15

12 Jan '15

Dominik thank you for your reply I've asked from the registration service department. But this is a problem for members. So we can discuss about it. cheers On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Dominik Nowacki <dominik(a)clouvider.co.uk> wrote: > Hi Shahin and welcome to the list, > > I don’t think it’s the question for the list members though. > > > > Get in touch with RIPE directly and ask them about their position: > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/contact > > http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/contact/contact-information > > > > With Kind Regards, > > Dominik Nowacki > > > > Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. > Registered number: 08750969. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, > United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor > email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of > security and staff training. This message contains confidential information > and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you > are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy > this e-mail. Please notify abuse(a)clouvider.net of this e-mail immediately > by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this > e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be > secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, > destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited > nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors > or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of > e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy > version. > > > > *From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On > Behalf Of *Shahin Gharghi > *Sent:* 12 January 2015 12:49 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* [members-discuss] BGP peer requirement for new AS Number > > > > Hi > > > > When an LIR (new LIR or existed one) wants to have a new AS Number, RIPE > NCC asks for their peers. At least two peer should be listed. > > I want to ask is it important for the RIPE NCC to know who are the peers? > > For example in Iran most of ISP's has only one peer and that is AS12880 or > AS48159. And this company(TIC) won't confirm any request. > > Even if it is important for the RIPE NCC, they can search their database > and ask the LIR contact of those LIR's to confirm the new peer's request. > > > > -- > > Shahin Gharghi >

1 0

Executive Board Decisions on GM Voting
by Nigel Titley 23 Sep '14

23 Sep '14

Dear Colleagues, At the last RIPE NCC Executive Board Meeting we discussed the issues that arose on the members-discuss mailing list regarding voting at the General Meeting (GM). These issues were summarised in my last mail to the list: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2014-July/001618.html The Board decided the following: A. Paper votes: There were some members who expressed concerns about electronic voting and would like to retain paper voting. While the Board believes that electronic voting is secure and stable, there is no compelling reason to remove paper voting at this time. Removing paper voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain paper voting for the moment. B. Proxy voting: This method of voting is used less frequently, but some members still use it and have indicated they would prefer to pass their vote to someone more informed and who they trust. The fact that submitting a proxy form requires some effort, and that members must submit proxy forms at least two weeks before the GM, also reduces the likelihood that proxy votes will be widely used. Removing proxy voting would also require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided to retain proxy voting for the moment. C. Voting by acclamation: There was one suggestion to remove the possibility to vote by acclamation, or "show of hands". This option is not practically possible while there is electronic voting. However, removing the option would require a change to the Articles of Association. The Board has therefore decided not to remove this possibility from the Articles of Association but in practice this option will not be used. D. Extending the voting window: A number of members were in favour of extending the voting window. Electronic votes make up the majority of votes cast so the Board would like to do as much as possible to make it convenient for remote participants to cast their votes. The new system of registration through the LIR Portal means the registration period for electronic voting can also be extended. These changes present no administrative problems for the RIPE NCC and no change to the Articles of Association is required. The Board has therefore decided to extend registration for electronic voting until 18:00 on the day of the GM and extend the voting window until 09:00 on the Friday after the GM. The voting issues will be raised during the Report from the Executive Board at the General Meeting on 5 November. If you have any feedback on the voting at the GM, we hope you will let us know either at the GM itself or on this mailing list. I encourage all members to register for the GM through the LIR Portal. The new system allows you to register your attendance and voting preferences quickly and securely: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/gm-registration You can also see the discussion items and resolution to be voted on at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2014/agenda-gm-november-2… Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] Crimea papers
by Sander Steffann 02 Aug '14

02 Aug '14

Hi, First, move this discussion to NCC Services and Members-discuss... > lets see this article > > http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2014.226.0… I think these are the most relevant parts. First the definitions: > “brokering services” means: > (i) the negotiation or arrangement of transactions for the purchase, sale or supply of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including from a third country to any other third country; or > (ii) the selling or buying of goods and technology or of financial and technical services, including where they are located in third countries for their transfer to another third country. > “technical assistance” means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service, and may take forms such as instruction, advice, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services; technical assistance includes verbal forms of assistance.’. Then under article 2c: > 2. Annex III shall include key equipment and technology related to the creation, acquisition or development of infrastructure in the following sectors: > [...] > (b) telecommunications; > [...] and > 3. It shall be prohibited to: > (a) provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance or brokering services related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III, or related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance and use of items listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol; and > (b) provide, directly or indirectly, financing or financial asssistance related to the key equipment and technology listed in Annex III to any natural or legal person, entity or body in Crimea or Sevastopol or for use in Crimea or Sevastopol. As a networking person 'related to the provision [...] and use of items listed' does seem to include allocating number resources. I think we need some legal advice on this issue again... Cheers, Sander

4 5