- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Vlad Dascalu 24 Dec '13

24 Dec '13

>> IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) That's simply not true, it's economy 101 basic stuff: demand adjusts based on price. If the price is higher, the demand will fall until it's equal to demand. Consider the case of large telecom that have an unique IP for every telephone line. A higher price is the only motivation that will encourage them to switch their private VOIP network to IPv6. At that higher price-point their transition will be feasible for them, why still being easily affordable by businesses which need a IPv4 for their website or other critical resources. Resource depletion shouldn't prevent an efficient allocation of scarcity. Vlad On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Tony Turner <tony.turner(a)nodemax.com>wrote: > > > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not bothered > by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does in > the telecoms market. > > > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > > > Tony > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > [image: logo] > > > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t work > .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP’s .. > > > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been > issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were > issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 > blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... > 1K would have been fine. > > > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has > all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say > are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or > not. > > > > Now we have given back *promptly* 4 million phone numbers some big mobile > companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those > numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them > will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or > has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to > keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP’s will > ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be given > back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a > demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less > than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so > mis -managed). > > > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such > will make you smile .. > > > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > > > Regards > > Tony > > > > > > > > > > > > *From:* members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [ > mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net>] > *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe > framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive > change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look > to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying > reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 > requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for > others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't > think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few > more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might > have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would > appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more > months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses > sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who > had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and > doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop > to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying > that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't > have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care > about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state > because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal > here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, > so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your > understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto: > members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no > problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release > them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From > here, you can add or remove addresses. >

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] IPv4 - Charging Won't Help You
by Paolo Di Francesco 18 Dec '13

18 Dec '13

Hi Tony, 1) large Italian ISP have answered that the will not implement IPv6, "it costs too much and by the way we still need IPv4 for a looong time so no way that we will implement it". They asked to implement ISP NAT which is crazy to me, but they say they prefer it. 2) not having IPv6 content from large content provider (in some cases the same large ISP/Telco) means that you need IPv4, natively 3) in my opinion, the large Telco have no interest to start deploying IPv6 (i.e. dual stack). For their market it's better to avoid IPv6 and sell IPv4, they have a LARGE amount. 4) IPv4 is a scarse resouse, as I said many times, we have few companies (large Telco) which are "controlloing" the IPv6 transition and going AGAINST that transition simply because that would give them a great advantage over who is asking now large IPv4 allocation. 5) being IPv4 a scarse resourse, just ask money exponentially (the more you eat, the more you pay). After that will happen (from the goverment from whoever should do that) we will see IPv6 happening VERY VERY fast 6) legally speaking, in Italy, 1 customer = 1 public IPv4. Therefore if you do not have IPv4 you cannot do business, it's not a technical thing it's a LEGAL thing. The rest is just noise. Paolo > Yep we are going for IPv6, we are applying over Xmas. We are not > bothered by lack of IPv4. We plan around it. > > All I was saying is charging for each IP’s won’t work where as it does > in the telecoms market. > > IP Market = resource < demand (charging won’t help) > > Telecoms Phone Numbers = resource > than demand (charging will help) > > So you can charge in telecoms market not in IP market , it won’t make a > difference. > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Joao Silveira > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 11:48 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. > > Hugs, > > --- > > Joao Silveira > > logo > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won’t > work .... all it will do is create another market for those with > extra IP’s ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not > guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had > been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some > ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, > but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not > Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but > that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they > say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer > or not. > > Now we have given back _promptly_ 4 million phone numbers some big > mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some > of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the > service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using > them will give them back as they know, “hey we can get some more”. > > With IP’s that’s different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run > out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and > can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the > big telcos/ISP’s will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP’s you may get back if they are charged for is from small > operators ... but as IP’s are so scarce I even doubt these will be > given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce > resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers > where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just > allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of > such will make you smile ... > > So charging won’t necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > *From:*members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Oliver Bryssau > *Sent:* 16 December 2013 09:59 > *To:* RIPE > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the > Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to > create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must > look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" <ripe(a)centronet.cz > <mailto:ripe@centronet.cz>> wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, > denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 > letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it > obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand > IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small > IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, > releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact > for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few > more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP > addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy > IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 > directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them > all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may > even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you > have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't > want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or > in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own > those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, > I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed > from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same > time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for > your understanding. > > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net > <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: > > IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or > elsewhere > > will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so > all you > > are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of > effort and > > money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be > no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to > release them and save money :) > > A. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". > From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > -- Ing. Paolo Di Francesco Level7 s.r.l. unipersonale Sede operativa: Largo Montalto, 5 - 90144 Palermo C.F. e P.IVA 05940050825 Fax : +39-091-8772072 assistenza: (+39) 091-8776432 web: http://www.level7.it

6 7

IPV4 market
by Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer

4 3

Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by William Weber 17 Dec '13

17 Dec '13

As RIPE seems to have decided that i can be ignored and no one needs to reply to me i make this public now as threatened to them before - See Dear Andrew, i don't care what you say - if you don't reply me with anything useful then i take steps to get others involved. This is not the first time i reported a LIR for evaluation and was ignored. I waited over a month for any reply and sent multiple follow up mails, no replies and the ticket is "open" in the Lirportal, now the last reply i got was again useless and without any interest (No Andrew, i cannot use the LIR<>LIR report form to report LIR<>RIPE, i can't even enter that there.) Theres some more fun to be had, here's a text i prepared before i sent my mail to RIPE after some investigations (which merely took 10 minutes time and a few calls to some associates) - Now, isn't that proof enough for an evaluation? I think so and the other LIRs i represent do as well, but make your own picture. -- Today we follow an interesting 'ISP' which is based on a sole-trader in the Netherlands which managed to have RIPE/Afrinic/ARIN assign him IPv4 space totaling to a /8: His name is Heng Lu, also known as "OutsideHeaven" - http://outsideheaven.com Seemingly based in the Netherlands Lu is of Chinese origin and does (as far as informations go) not live in Europe at all. First being a customer of OVH and having his IP space announced on OVHs AS now most space seems to be announced by Los Angeles based ISP Multacom (AS35916). A short view on the website shows that no real services are provided yet massive amounts of IPs are registered to him personally, him as sole trader or his companies at all RIRs: 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs This is an AFRINIC net assigned to a company in the Seychelles ("Abacus (Seychelles) Limited"), the Person handle and mail shows the connection to OutsideHeaven. The network itself contains smaller assignments, all with the descr of "CloudInnovation infrastructure" and various countries set (AD, SD, YT….), most IPs are not announced at all and seem unused. 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs A RIPE network from 2012.09 announced by Multacom in LAX outside of the RIPE region. Seems unused. 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs RIPE network dating to 2012.07 (Just 3 months after the /15 was allocated, exactly the timeframe RIPE required a space to be used in to get a new one…), announced on OVH. 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs Yet another RIPE network from 2012.04 (who can spell 'bribe'?) announced by OVH on France, unused as well. 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs Allocated 2010.11 - Announced by a datacenter in the Netherlands, unused. 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs 2011.04 - Announced in LAX/Multacom. List (not complete, there is more smaller assignments on him): 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2010.11 178.236.224.0/20 - RIPE - 4096 IPs - 2010.06 -- William Weber | RIPE Person: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh (among others) william(a)edisglobal.com | william(a)william.si | http://edis.at | http://as57169.net EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Maribor, Slovenia Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: > Von: William Weber <william(a)edis.at> > Betreff: Aw: NCC#2013100726 Complaint against a LIR > Datum: 09. Oktober 2013 13:18:36 MESZ > An: Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net> > > Dear Andrew, > > And who verified that these 2 analysts were not bribed... i know guys buying /12s by bribing AFRINIC officials (in fact, the same LIR as this mail is about "bought" space there also, 154.80.0.0/12) and this isn't unheard in LACNIC/APNIC either, so what tells me RIPE did/does not do the same... > > Sorry, but this is not really any better now: > > This guy "accidentally" sits in Amsterdam as well, not even far from you, being Chinese(!) with barely 3000EUR income reports filled 2012/2013 in the Netherlands for his BVs and his sole trader status and has one of the largest total > allocations in the entire RIPE region? > > How can he announce 2(!) *ENTIRE* /15 from an ARIN ASN in Los Angeles while i and others got contacted by RIPE about a measly /24 on an ARIN ASN? > > Why do his assignments make no sense, look auto generated and never contain any end-user data? Why was this not verified at add-alloc? > > How does he use over a million IPs on a 100Mbit uplink to his upstream provider? > > This all is still very fishy and not really impressive... > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, > William Weber > > -- > EDIS GmbH > NOC > Hauptplatz 3/3 > 8010 Graz > Austria > Umsatzsteuer-ID: ATU 64124511 > Firmenbuch: FN 308697t > > phone: +43 316 827 500 > fax: +43 316 827 500 777 > http://www.edis.at > > This message was sent by EDIS GmbH, it is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL and is solely for the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at support(a)edis.at and delete it from your computer. > > > Am 08.10.2013 um 11:55 schrieb Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net>: > >> Dear William, >> >> We take your allegations very seriously. As such, your ticket has been escalated to me by Andrea Cima, manager of the RIPE NCC's Registration Services Department. >> >> Before the RIPE NCC reached the last /8 of IPv4 address space, we implemented a temporarily enhanced allocation procedure to ensure a fair, neutral and well-documented IPv4 run-out. >> >> This procedure was communicated to our membership and community at meetings, via the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List, and via our website. You can find the complete description at: >> https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/204-last_slash_8_NCC_Services.pdf >> >> Measures were taken to ensure our members' needs were filled on a first-come, first-served basis, and to ensure that we followed due diligence. Each request was evaluated by two IP Resource Analysts. Furthermore, all large requests (/15 PA or /18 PI or more) were rigorously evaluated by Registration Services Management, checked for policy compliance by our Policy Development Officer, and were finally approved by two RIPE NCC Senior Managers. >> >> The IPv4 requests you have listed followed this process completely and, based on the information we received, were entirely justified. >> >> If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. >> >> Kind regards >> >> Andrew de la Haye >> Chief Operations Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> Singel 258 >> 1016 AB Amsterdam >> the Netherlands >> andrew(a)ripe.net >> tel: +31 20 535 4444 >> fax: +31 20 535 4445 > Am 07.10.2013 um 14:29 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>: > > Dear William, > > As requested I have escalated your complaint to the RIPE NCC Senior > Management. > > They will come back to you ASAP. > > Best regards, > Andrea Cima > > RIPE NCC > > > On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:11:37 +0200, William Weber wrote: >> Dear Andrea, >> >> So if there is no proof for a bribe you do as it does not exist at all? >> Why did no one tell me this before, i would have come with a suitcase of cash to AMS... Seriously, this statement is worse than what 3rd world dictators state all the time about bribery... >> >> Considering that RIPE members have no access to other RIPE members add-alloc (or any other) forms it is also entirely *impossible* to prove lies in them (hey, how should i do that if i can't read them at all?) - Thus it clearly is your obligation to verify this claims OR provide the accuser with access to a system to verify it himself. >> >> It is by itself alone VERY suspicious that the single largest allocation for weeks is allocated 8 days before the last /8 is reached to an unknown sole trader without any business.... yes, i think i have enough 'proof' to get this verified by the RIPE, please escalate it to whoever you think is appropriate or i will do so myself today at 00:00 via the RIPE mailing list to ALL members. >> >> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, >> William Weber >> >> -- >> EDIS GmbH >> NOC >> >> >> Am 04.10.2013 um 15:52 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net>: >> >>> >>> Dear William, >>> >>> All allocations are issued based on RIPE policy and documentation that >>> demonstrates the need for those resources. The information provided by >>> members is confidential and cannot be shared with other members. >>> >>> If you have proof that a member has provided false information to the >>> RIPE NCC, please provide us this proof. Based on this we can then >>> start evaluating the claims and take appropriate actions. The same >>> counts for your accusation of a RIPE NCC emloyee having received a >>> bribe, which is a very serious accusation, that we do not take >>> lightly. >>> >>> Finally it seems there is a misunderstanding about the date on which >>> the RIPE NCC has reached its last /8 policy. The correct date is 14 >>> September 2012. Please find the official announcement at: >>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-September/00182… >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Andrea Cima >>> Registration Services Manager >>> RIPE NCC >>> >>> >>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:49:32 +0200, William Weber wrote: >>>> x-ncc-regid: at.edisgmbh (and at.<removed>, li.<removed>, li.<removed>, plus representing <removed> and <removed>) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, i have to complain again to evaluate someone.... >>>> >>>> LIR is nl.outsideheaven >>>> >>>> I am 100% sure that the allocation of his netblocks have either used false data in the add-alloc forms, plain lies or bribes (which i see as the most likely) - His company has no trading activity in any country (verified with Dutch and Chinese tax authorities) and nothing that would justify the usage of this amounts of IPv4 space. >>>> His usage of some of them also violates RIPE rules, most are for example not even announced inside the RIPE region but originate from AS35916 (Multacom in Los Angeles, USA) solely. >>>> The assignments while RIPE already reached the last /8 are very questionable as well and overturning a members and board decision. >>>> >>>> 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> >>>> 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /15 5 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /16 3 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 >>>> -> How was he able to obtain a /15 1 month AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? >>>> >>>> >>>> 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 >>>> -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, >>>> William Weber >>>> >>>> -- >>>> EDIS GmbH >>>> NOC >>>> >>>> >>

35 66

Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by Joao Silveira 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Hi All, Why not use IPv6. The IPv4 market will go down definitively. Hugs, --- Joao Silveira On Mon, 16 Dec 2013 11:34:29 -0000, Tony Turner wrote: > Hi All, > > A Fee for a Resource that is significantly smaller than Demand won't work .... all it will do is create another market for those with extra IP's ... > > What do other markets do when there is a shortage ..... it is not guaranteed to work in this market .... > > Never posted on here but here is my 2 pence worth so bear with me ... > > Our experience from a telecommunications view is interesting. We had been issued by Ofcom 600 x 10,000 blocks of phone numbers, some ranges were issued in 1K blocks where there was shortage in a town, but if not 10,000 blocks, our mobile range is 100,000 > > Now we never need 10K blocks for all towns, yes London but not Maldon .... 1K would have been fine. > > Now Ofcom have never charged for phone numbers historically, but that has all started to change due to a shortage > > and of course lack of Government funding. > > First they went to 1K blocks as numbers for a town became scarce.... > > Now they are starting to charge for numbers in the towns which they say are a conservation area where numbers are scarce. > > They charge 10p per number per year, whether allocated to a customer or not. > > Now we have given back promptly 4 million phone numbers some big mobile companies have also dumped the numbers and services on some of those numbers like broadband VOIP some mobile operators cut the service. > > Phone numbers I am sure will never run out so companies not using them will give them back as they know, "hey we can get some more". > > With IP's that's different, I think whatever happens IPV4 will run out (or has) whatever approach is taken. The big boys know this and can afford to keep them whatever is charged for them so I doubt the big telcos/ISP's will ever give them back. Irrespective of a charge. > > The only IP's you may get back if they are charged for is from small operators ... but as IP's are so scarce I even doubt these will be given back as companies can rent them out as they are a scarce resource with a demand greater than supply unlike UK phone numbers where the demand is less than supply but phone numbers where just allocated on blocks too large (so mis -managed). > > You may think great they will rent them out, I doubt the terms of such will make you smile ... > > So charging won't necessarily work. > > Regards > > Tony > > FROM: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] ON BEHALF OF Oliver Bryssau > SENT: 16 December 2013 09:59 > TO: RIPE > CC: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > SUBJECT: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > Hi All, > > I think that post hits the nail on the head perfectly. > > I guess if so many of us feel this way we should investigate the Ripe framework to see if there is something that can be done to create positive change. > > This would be a great short/medium term solution however we all must look to support ipv6 natively. > > Merry Christmas, > Oliver > > On 16 Dec 2013 09:39, "RIPE" wrote: > > Hello, > > everyone who says "IPv4 is gone" is living in his/her dreams, denying reality and IPv4 market (and those mentioned average 2 letters/IPv4 requests per day). It may be true for some, but it obviously isn't for others, no matter reasons. While I understand IPv6 propagation, I don't think that punishing/discriminating small IPv4 holders in need for a few more IPs is right. Actually, releasing those big unused IPv4 blocks might have much better impact for IPv6 development, while the small ones would appreciate "a few more C" and it may even be enought for a few more months/years this way. > > While I must admit I'm not sure how to do this, some fee for IP addresses sounds like natural way. So I must agree, if you are happy IPv6 user who had no problems to move from IPv4 (or started at IPv6 directly) and doesn't need IPv4 addresses anymore, just return them all and you can stop to care about it and less lucky us. You may even have it cheaper. Saying that you don't need IPv4 because you have IPv6 already sounds like "I don't have this problem so I don't want/need it to be solved and I don't care about others" to me. Or in worse case, it may even be "I like current state because I own those big blocks and I have profit from it". Nothing personal here, I wasn't screening anyone and I don't accuse anyone. Just annoyed from all those "IPv6 solves everything" announcers who are, at same time, so much against returning of any unused IPv4 space. Thanks for your understanding. > > Merry Christmas to everyone > > Matej Vavrousek > CentroNet, a.s. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [2] [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [3]] On Behalf Of Andrea Cocito > Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 5:42 PM > To: Gert Doering > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net [4] > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Gert Doering wrote: >> IPv4 is *gone*, get over it. No matter of discussion here or elsewhere >> will bring back IPv4 in quantities needed to "last forever", so all you >> are doing is postponing the inevitable, and burning lots of effort and >> money in the denial phase. > > Right, then if the fee scheme is changed in that way there will be no problem for LIRs who have millions of IPv4 addresses allocated to release them and save money :) > > A. > > ---- > 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/view [6] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > ---- > 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/view [7] > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Links: ------ [1] mailto:ripe@centronet.cz [2] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [3] mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net [4] mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net [5] mailto:gert@space.net [6] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view [7] https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/view

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] IPV4 market
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 16 Dec '13

16 Dec '13

Define "using them"? Also as far as I know there's no way for any of the RIRs to randomly take back IP space .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Sajjad Najafi Zadeh [ MTNIrancell ] [sajjad.n(a)mtnirancell.ir] Sent: 16 December 2013 11:10 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] IPV4 market HI all, Why ripe is not doing re-evaluation for large IP spaces and take back from LIRs if they are not using them to stop this IP market ? Regards . MTNIrancell Mail Disclaimer available at: http://www.irancell.ir/maildisclaimer

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by Alex Saroyan 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

Hi, I can confirm that I have seen Lu Heng at least at all last 5-6 Ripe meetings. So +1 that he is really reachable and speakable person. Best Regards /Alex Saroyan "Administration - [ inAsset Networks ]" <admin(a)inasset.es> wrote: >---- >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/view > >Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight 21 Nov '13

21 Nov '13

He's here in Buenos Aires this week at the ICANN meeting... I've met him several times this week I'd also question whether a RIPE mailing list is the appropriate place to make very serious allegations against another member Regards Michele -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 ________________________________ From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net] on behalf of Alex Saroyan [alex.saroyan(a)inn.eu] Sent: 21 November 2013 17:22 To: Administration - [ inAsset Networks ] Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Complaints against LIRs ignored by NCC Hi, I can confirm that I have seen Lu Heng at least at all last 5-6 Ripe meetings. So +1 that he is really reachable and speakable person. Best Regards /Alex Saroyan "Administration - [ inAsset Networks ]" <admin(a)inasset.es> wrote: Sascha, We do not have any relation with the complainer, and we would appreciate you avoid to make such suggestions. If you want to contact us, you can find our phone number and e-mail addresses at RIPE NCC Whois DB. Thank you. Administration - [ inAsset Networks ] El 21/11/2013, a las 17:40, Sascha E. Pollok <sp(a)iphh.net<mailto:sp@iphh.net>> escribió: +1. This looks clearly personal. Especially those half-anonymous complains ("Administration - [ inAsset Networks ]") look strange to me (no offense). And William, thank you for sharing all the details about your personal life (Who is more evil?) - but probably most people here do not find it interesting (just an assumption). "Administration - [ inAsset Networks ]", William, did you two somehow organize to get together today to start this? I dont need an answer. Focus on facts please and keep the noise low. Thank you. The Management. Am 21.11.2013 17:21, schrieb Christian Hoffmann [sfip84 Hosting und mehr UG]: Hey, am i the only person having the feeling that there is a private issue going on here? I mean come on, this guy has the bigger one, i am jalous too, but as part of the RIPE NCC i think i really should trust the persons working for the NCC. For my understanding with every new allocation (and he has a lot..) there is an Audit going on. Ok, he is announcing part of the networks outside the RIPE Area, but for my understanding that is ok as long as the company and the core network is based in Europe. Or did i missed something. Am 21.11.2013 17:12, schrieb William Weber: Hello together, So so so, finally he can reply - Hello there Mr. Lu, why were my previous contact tries ignored? I was in fact *AT YOUR ADDRESS* in Holland in 2012, nobody there - I would have someone sent to your address in China also, but that one is unclear described. I wondering where you have the inaccurate income data about me personally and my private company as well I do not need to share any sources (what is this, the PLA?), all data was obtained legally in my country of residence (Slovenia) and Austria - I can not vouch for correctness but in the past it was usually near the expected. Not like your data is secret in the Netherlands. making an criminal charge(corruption) to Ripe NCC, inaccurate publish our private income data in the public space without supporting evidence are very serious offense under european law, although my lawyer strongly suggest him to write the letter, I insists my self to write here just because I would appreciate member's understanding and community's support. I'm not sure what gives you the idea that Dutch law would be applicable to me in Slovenia/Austaira (or at all, considering that Slovenia/Austria as per constitution cannot extradict citizens)? The statement of mine - *POSSIBLE* bribe - Is fully legal to make, even the implication of it would be - The RIPE ticket system is also not the public and neither is the mailing list, it is a closed system. You can sue me all you want, i have not much to loose currently, and once cleared move to Israel which does neither extradict nor care much about Europe. The Austrian police confiscated my hardware 2012 and 2013, the Austrian police investigates my financial transactions, the Polish police wants to see me in jail (and has an order for that), Hongkong authorities are not amused, my phones and internet is taped, i am being followed by the Austrian police. Just google my name and add "tor" and you get an image, you (and no one else) can threaten me with "law" anymore. I will reply more lenghty later, because even though the Austrian government does not like me they still send me invitations to broadband expansion forums and force me to attend and speak. Also, most here agree with me and you CLEARLY violate RIPE policies with the ARIN routing and others - So *you* are the one that should explain himself, not me. This is also a note: *The statements here are fully personal or statements of my own companies, not EDIS GmbH which is however one LIR i represent.* -- William Weber | RIPE: WW | LIR: william(a)william.si<mailto:william@william.si> <mailto:william@william.si> Am 21.11.2013 um 16:44 schrieb "H.Lu" <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com<mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com> <mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com>>: Hi We do not want to sue "anybody" here, sorry for mistyping English. we followed all the process in the Ripe region, and I personally involved and participated in the Ripe policy development process, To inasset network: I wonder how you as single organization define "best interest of ripe member" and justifying other member's IP usage? Kind regards Lu On 2013-11-21, at 下午12:26, "Administration - [ inAsset Networks ]" <admin(a)inasset.es<mailto:admin@inasset.es> <mailto:admin@inasset.es>> wrote: Good Afternoon (in Europe) Mr. Lu, we will follow your activities closely, and see if RIPE NCC takes action in the event the use of your assigned space is not in the best interest of its members. For now, we would like to know why you are announcing RIPE NCC space in ARIN. *Administration* - [ inAsset Networks ] El 21/11/2013, a las 16:02, H.Lu <h.lu(a)anytimechinese.com<mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com> <mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com>> escribió: Hi: What a surprise morning. I think it was talking about me and my company. To clarify few things, the justification process of our application took very long in ripe NCC and I believe ripe NCC investigate about us heavily in the major service we provided at the time of it being justified. and corruption claim are very much inappreicate and I would ask you apologizes to Ripe NCC. Me as individual as been actively involved in the ripe community in past 5 years, and I believe most active member in the list knowing me personally. I wondering where you have the inaccurate income data about me personally and my private company as well. as it can not be obtain legally and the data was not correct. I personally owing quite few companies worldwide but they are all private companies I do not feel the need to share our financial details publicly. Most part of our business are confidential so sorry we can not provide more details here, like every request, Member base are trusting Ripe NCC to make the right decision at the time of application. That is how business really works, only Ripe NCC has rights to getting into confidential area of member's business, otherwise I believe every member would have to publish every detail about their business to the public. And I would ask if you do have more questions for me, as long as it is not confidential, I'd like to share my stories with you. Please do not bother Ripe NCC for this matter any more. At this point, Ripe NCC are just a book keeper for its members and Ripe community, they are not police force, if you do feel we have some unlawful practice--thought I seriously doubt about it, please contact related law enforcement and we are very happy to assist in the matter with them. Last but not least, as I just had phone call with my lawyer, making an criminal charge(corruption) to Ripe NCC, inaccurate publish our private income data in the public space without supporting evidence are very serious offense under european law, although my lawyer strongly suggest him to write the letter, I insists my self to write here just because I would appreciate member's understanding and community's support. Let me know if you still have more questions. Kind regards Lu On 2013-11-21, at 上午11:05, William Weber <ripe-members-discussion(a)edisglobal.com<mailto:ripe-members-discussion@edisglobal.com> <mailto:ripe-members-discussion@edisglobal.com>> wrote: As RIPE seems to have decided that i can be ignored and no one needs to reply to me i make this public now as threatened to them before - See Dear Andrew, i don't care what you say - if you don't reply me with anything useful then i take steps to get others involved. This is not the first time i reported a LIR for evaluation and was ignored. I waited over a month for any reply and sent multiple follow up mails, no replies and the ticket is "open" in the Lirportal, now the last reply i got was again useless and without any interest (No Andrew, i cannot use the LIR<>LIR report form to report LIR<>RIPE, i can't even enter that there.) Theres some more fun to be had, here's a text i prepared before i sent my mail to RIPE after some investigations (which merely took 10 minutes time and a few calls to some associates) - Now, isn't that proof enough for an evaluation? I think so and the other LIRs i represent do as well, but make your own picture. -- Today we follow an interesting 'ISP' which is based on a sole-trader in the Netherlands which managed to have RIPE/Afrinic/ARIN assign him IPv4 space totaling to a /8: His name is Heng Lu, also known as "OutsideHeaven" - http://outsideheaven.com<http://outsideheaven.com/> <http://outsideheaven.com/> Seemingly based in the Netherlands Lu is of Chinese origin and does (as far as informations go) not live in Europe at all. First being a customer of OVH and having his IP space announced on OVHs AS now most space seems to be announced by Los Angeles based ISP Multacom (AS35916). A short view on the website shows that no real services are provided yet massive amounts of IPs are registered to him personally, him as sole trader or his companies at all RIRs: 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs This is an AFRINIC net assigned to a company in the Seychelles ("Abacus (Seychelles) Limited"), the Person handle and mail shows the connection to OutsideHeaven. The network itself contains smaller assignments, all with the descr of "CloudInnovation infrastructure" and various countries set (AD, SD, YT….), most IPs are not announced at all and seem unused. 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs A RIPE network from 2012.09 announced by Multacom in LAX outside of the RIPE region. Seems unused. 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs RIPE network dating to 2012.07 (Just 3 months after the /15 was allocated, exactly the timeframe RIPE required a space to be used in to get a new one…), announced on OVH. 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs Yet another RIPE network from 2012.04 (who can spell 'bribe'?) announced by OVH on France, unused as well. 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs Allocated 2010.11 - Announced by a datacenter in the Netherlands, unused. 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65000 IPs 2011.04 - Announced in LAX/Multacom. List (not complete, there is more smaller assignments on him): 154.80.0.0/12 - Afrinic - 1.048.574 IPs 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 46.136.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2010.11 178.236.224.0/20 - RIPE - 4096 IPs - 2010.06 -- William Weber | RIPE Person: WW | LIR: at.edisgmbh (among others) william(a)edisglobal.com<mailto:william@edisglobal.com> <mailto:william@edisglobal.com> | william(a)william.si<mailto:william@william.si> <mailto:william@william.si> | http://edis.at<http://edis.at/> <http://edis.at/> | http://as57169.net<http://as57169.net/> <http://as57169.net/> EDIS GmbH (AS57169) NOC Maribor, Slovenia Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht: *Von: *William Weber <william(a)edis.at<mailto:william@edis.at> <mailto:william@edis.at>> *Betreff: **Aw: NCC#2013100726 Complaint against a LIR* *Datum: *09. Oktober 2013 13:18:36 MESZ *An: *Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net<mailto:andrew@ripe.net> <mailto:andrew@ripe.net>> Dear Andrew, And who verified that these 2 analysts were not bribed... i know guys buying /12s by bribing AFRINIC officials (in fact, the same LIR as this mail is about "bought" space there also, 154.80.0.0/12) and this isn't unheard in LACNIC/APNIC either, so what tells me RIPE did/does not do the same... Sorry, but this is not really any better now: This guy "accidentally" sits in Amsterdam as well, not even far from you, being Chinese(!) with barely 3000EUR income reports filled 2012/2013 in the Netherlands for his BVs and his sole trader status and has one of the largest total allocations in the entire RIPE region? How can he announce 2(!) *ENTIRE* /15 from an ARIN ASN in Los Angeles while i and others got contacted by RIPE about a measly /24 on an ARIN ASN? Why do his assignments make no sense, look auto generated and never contain any end-user data? Why was this not verified at add-alloc? How does he use over a million IPs on a 100Mbit uplink to his upstream provider? This all is still very fishy and not really impressive... Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, William Weber -- EDIS GmbH NOC Hauptplatz 3/3 8010 Graz Austria Umsatzsteuer-ID: ATU 64124511 Firmenbuch: FN 308697t phone: +43 316 827 500 fax: +43 316 827 500 777 http://www.edis.at<http://www.edis.at/> <http://www.edis.at/> This message was sent by EDIS GmbH, it is STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL and is solely for the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us at support(a)edis.at<mailto:support@edis.at> <mailto:support@edis.at> and delete it from your computer. Am 08.10.2013 um 11:55 schrieb Andrew de la Haye <andrew(a)ripe.net<mailto:andrew@ripe.net> <mailto:andrew@ripe.net>>: Dear William, We take your allegations very seriously. As such, your ticket has been escalated to me by Andrea Cima, manager of the RIPE NCC's Registration Services Department. Before the RIPE NCC reached the last /8 of IPv4 address space, we implemented a temporarily enhanced allocation procedure to ensure a fair, neutral and well-documented IPv4 run-out. This procedure was communicated to our membership and community at meetings, via the Address Policy Working Group Mailing List, and via our website. You can find the complete description at: https://ripe65.ripe.net/presentations/204-last_slash_8_NCC_Services.pdf Measures were taken to ensure our members' needs were filled on a first-come, first-served basis, and to ensure that we followed due diligence. Each request was evaluated by two IP Resource Analysts. Furthermore, all large requests (/15 PA or /18 PI or more) were rigorously evaluated by Registration Services Management, checked for policy compliance by our Policy Development Officer, and were finally approved by two RIPE NCC Senior Managers. The IPv4 requests you have listed followed this process completely and, based on the information we received, were entirely justified. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC Singel 258 1016 AB Amsterdam the Netherlands andrew(a)ripe.net<mailto:andrew@ripe.net> <mailto:andrew@ripe.net> tel: +31 20 535 4444 fax: +31 20 535 4445 Am 07.10.2013 um 14:29 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net<mailto:hostmaster@ripe.net> <mailto:hostmaster@ripe.net>>: Dear William, As requested I have escalated your complaint to the RIPE NCC Senior Management. They will come back to you ASAP. Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC On Fri, 4 Oct 2013 16:11:37 +0200, William Weber wrote: Dear Andrea, So if there is no proof for a bribe you do as it does not exist at all? Why did no one tell me this before, i would have come with a suitcase of cash to AMS... Seriously, this statement is worse than what 3rd world dictators state all the time about bribery... Considering that RIPE members have no access to other RIPE members add-alloc (or any other) forms it is also entirely *impossible* to prove lies in them (hey, how should i do that if i can't read them at all?) - Thus it clearly is your obligation to verify this claims OR provide the accuser with access to a system to verify it himself. It is by itself alone VERY suspicious that the single largest allocation for weeks is allocated 8 days before the last /8 is reached to an unknown sole trader without any business.... yes, i think i have enough 'proof' to get this verified by the RIPE, please escalate it to whoever you think is appropriate or i will do so myself today at 00:00 via the RIPE mailing list to ALL members. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, William Weber -- EDIS GmbH NOC Am 04.10.2013 um 15:52 schrieb RIPE NCC Hostmaster <hostmaster(a)ripe.net<mailto:hostmaster@ripe.net> <mailto:hostmaster@ripe.net>>: Dear William, All allocations are issued based on RIPE policy and documentation that demonstrates the need for those resources. The information provided by members is confidential and cannot be shared with other members. If you have proof that a member has provided false information to the RIPE NCC, please provide us this proof. Based on this we can then start evaluating the claims and take appropriate actions. The same counts for your accusation of a RIPE NCC emloyee having received a bribe, which is a very serious accusation, that we do not take lightly. Finally it seems there is a misunderstanding about the date on which the RIPE NCC has reached its last /8 policy. The correct date is 14 September 2012. Please find the official announcement at: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/2012-September/00182… Kind regards, Andrea Cima Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 13:49:32 +0200, William Weber wrote: x-ncc-regid: at.edisgmbh (and at.<removed>, li.<removed>, li.<removed>, plus representing <removed> and <removed>) Yes, i have to complain again to evaluate someone.... LIR is nl.outsideheaven I am 100% sure that the allocation of his netblocks have either used false data in the add-alloc forms, plain lies or bribes (which i see as the most likely) - His company has no trading activity in any country (verified with Dutch and Chinese tax authorities) and nothing that would justify the usage of this amounts of IPv4 space. His usage of some of them also violates RIPE rules, most are for example not even announced inside the RIPE region but originate from AS35916 (Multacom in Los Angeles, USA) solely. The assignments while RIPE already reached the last /8 are very questionable as well and overturning a members and board decision. 185.2.48.0/22 - RIPE - 1024 IPs - 2012.09 -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE 5.224.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.09 -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE -> How was he able to obtain a /15 5 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? 5.132.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2012.07 -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE -> How was he able to obtain a /16 3 months AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? 37.222.0.0/15 - RIPE - 131.070 IPs - 2012.04 -> How was he able to obtain a /15 1 month AFTER RIPE reached the last /8? 31.201.0.0/16 - RIPE - 65.534 IPs - 2011.04 -> Announced in the ARIN region entirely, not RIPE Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards, William Weber -- EDIS GmbH NOC ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen Christian Hoffmann Geschäftsführender Gesellschafter ---- sfip84 Hosting und mehr UG (haftungsbeschränkt) Winterhuder Weg 29 DE-22085 Hamburg Tel.: +49 (0) 40 / 22 81 56 17 0 Fax.: +49 (0) 40 / 22 81 56 17 9 - vetretungsberechtigter Gesellschafter: Christian Hoffmann USt-IdNr.: DE282309913 Registergericht: Hamburg HRB 121712 -- [ Ein Geschäft, das nur Geld einbringt, ist ein schlechtes Geschäft. ] ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

1 0

Marketing? Really?
by Sander Steffann 23 Oct '13

23 Oct '13

Hi, I just noticed this on the NCC website: http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/jobs/current-openings/marketing-and-pr… From that page: " This is a high profile role within the organisation [...] to develop a high-level marketing, branding and PR strategy for all services." and "General Duties: [...] Write powerful and engaging promotional content for the organisation’s products and services [...]" It really surprises me that the NCC, being a membership organisation, needs someone for marketing its products and services... I hope I am just misunderstanding this :-) Cheers, Sander

13 20

НА: Marketing? Really?
by Vladislav Potapov 22 Oct '13

22 Oct '13

Me too. And many "outgoing" activities like RIPE meetings an so... too. I'm fully satisfied with the latest finance documents. At least they have the information I asked. Vladislav Potapov ru.iiat -----Исходное сообщение----- От: "Jānis Jaunošāns" <jj(a)streamnetworks.lv> Отправлено: ‎22.‎10.‎2013 21:46 Кому: "members-discuss(a)ripe.net" <members-discuss(a)ripe.net> Тема: Re: [members-discuss] Marketing? Really? I like atlas and labs :( On 10/22/13 7:49 PM, Daniel Stolpe wrote: > On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Sander Steffann wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just noticed this on the NCC website: >> http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/jobs/current-openings/marketing-and-pr… >> >>> From that page: " This is a high profile role within the organisation [...] to develop a high-level marketing, branding and PR strategy for all services." >> and "General Duties: [...] Write powerful and engaging promotional content for the organisation?s products and services [...]" >> >> It really surprises me that the NCC, being a membership organisation, needs someone for marketing its products and services... >> >> I hope I am just misunderstanding this :-) > Hi Sander, > > Well, you know, it doesn't surprise me that much, considering the > employees talking about the NCC as a company while it in many ways is > everything but a company. I think it has many similarities with a > government entity. People do a lot of divese things and nobody is > responsible for the financies. (Axel just goes to Nigel and says "I need > 20 millinon euros next year, and then the board suggest a membership fee > that will cover the expenses and we are done). > > According to the activity plan, about 30ish people work with the core > business: registry services. And about 100 do other stuff. Of course there > has to be some infrastructure around but I still don't get what all of > them are doing. > > I would be very happy to see a document stating what the NCC are supposed > to do. And not do. > > Atlas, and labs and "no name" services are things I could do without. For > example > > Cheers, > > Daniel > > _________________________________________________________________________________ > Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe(a)resilans.se > Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ > Box 13 054 556741-1193 > 103 02 Stockholm > > > ---- > 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/view > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. -- Tālrunis: +371 67788888 ---- 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/view Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.

4 3