- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

whois mntner
by Richard Kojedzinszky 18 Feb '12

18 Feb '12

Dear members, Maybe a stupid question, but I am used to update objects via signed emails. Now, a mntner object cannot be queried fully, I got a filtered result always, even with the maintainer not containing md5 passwords. So I am missing the auth: fields. $ whois -T mntner -B -r MNT-RK1387-RIPE % This is the RIPE Database query service. % The objects are in RPSL format. % % The RIPE Database is subject to Terms and Conditions. % See http://www.ripe.net/db/support/db-terms-conditions.pdf % Information related to 'MNT-RK1387-RIPE' mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE # Filtered >From https://apps.db.ripe.net/webupdates/search.html altough I can query the full object: mntner: MNT-RK1387-RIPE descr: Maintainer of RK1387-RIPE admin-c: RK1387-RIPE upd-to: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu auth: PGPKEY-8F59B1B7 auth: X509-2577 mnt-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE referral-by: MNT-RK1387-RIPE changed: richardk(a)tvnetwork.hu 20080417 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 changed: krichy(a)tvnetwork.hu 20090814 source: RIPE And as I am used to copy-paste the result, change what I like, and then send it back, this does not work anymore. Any suggestions are welcome. Regards, Kojedzinszky Richard Euronet Magyarorszag Informatikai Zrt.

5 7

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> Well I looked and saw that out of the top 45,000 Alexa ranked sites, > that 100 are on the IPV6 launch list, not exactly inspiring. I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being finished ready for lock down. brandon

5 4

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 17 Feb '12

17 Feb '12

> -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Comunicaciones ACOTELSA > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 2:18 PM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > ... > > And I don´t like speak about the general meetings to deal the new > charge scheme because in my enterprise, with only one /26 IPv4, we > can´t pay the cost to go to the general meeting (travel, salary) and I > and imagine that there are more like us so only the big enterprise can > assist, negotiate and vote (although we can use the internet vote). Yes! You knew this! Why you don't use your vote rights through the Internet then? It doesn't rise you expenses and you have had the full ability to vote for all questions since this year! Many LIRs got the opportunity at the last meeting. Our company can't (like yours) go to each general meeting, but I took every opportunity for 3 year already to vote electronically! > > In resume, I can't understand why a foundation increase its expenses > year over year. If you don't take part in the community discussions and don't vote - you'll never know why. You can read all about last GM and learn that for the coming year RIPE NCC will publish expenses in more details. You can suggest to eliminate an activity to lower the overall cost and if you have support - the increases may stop! Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> Google: chinese olympics ipv6 google UK olympics ipv6 > Happened in 2008 nuff said not happening in 2012, really lame (not just BBC site) > Every large site today being served by load balancers today can turn on ipv6 I know, we can, I had it running for v6 day. If we'd started a year ago it could have been in the plan for this June but Vint said 2013 and no other announcements were made until Jan. Too late, ops had already decided making it production wasn't high enough up their list until of stuff that really must work for the Olympics. Tough, would have been good to do. brandon

6 6

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Feb '12

16 Feb '12

> > I'd put the BBC on but the timing is bad. I was planning for > > the previously discussed 01-01-2013 which is easy in the > > post Olympic chill out. June isn't, everything is being > > finished ready for lock down. > > So what about "tomorrow"? Or is this bad again, because it's Friday? There is that, it is also still before the Olympics (OK, you wanted a tl;dr explanation but that also can mean too long, didn't write) brandon

1 0

FW: Problem transit traffic
by Azamat Soyuzbekov 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Our two path. (Our AS50223) Example: *> 2.16.56.0/23 212.42.96. 0 260 0 8449 3216 2914 4436 20940 20940 i * 213.145.131. 0 255 0 12997 9198 20485 3549 20940 20940 i by 8449 it works, but through the 12997 does not work. 12997 says that 9198 blocks. On many forums, users are complaining that the 9198 block sites. On the request is silent and does not meet.

5 6

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

can someone provide an insight into wether ipv4 at ripe has actually run out now? how much is left.. etc :P and can someone at google and facebook and twitter and stuff provide a reason why ipv6 STILL isn't on on their stuff by default (the same goes for ALL german xdsl providers ;) it's not like you lot didn't have millions to spend and years to prepare for it :P On Tue, 14 Feb 2012, Bill Lewis wrote: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > > > cheers > > Bill > uk.kijoma > > ---- > 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 5

Problem transit traffic
by Azamat Soyuzbekov 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

I have to you have a question? If an ISP blocks the transit traffic is what rules they break, and if we can resolve this issue through Ripe? maintainer who block traffic mntner: KNIC-MNT

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] why is it proving impossible to gain IP sapce
by Sascha Lenz 15 Feb '12

15 Feb '12

Hi, Am 14.02.2012 um 22:05 schrieb Bill Lewis: > hi, > > We have a /21 IP4 and a /32 IP6 and need more IP4... We appreciate the > IP4 pool is very low...but... > > We have been trying to gain more IP4 , a /21 would be good, /20 idealy > as equipment vendors and partners are unfortunately not yet up to speed > with IP6 for production use here and therefore we need more IP4 to > bridge this gap. > > The issue is that it is proving impossible to gain any IP4, it is clear > that we have allocated all we have and are now forced to "rent" IP space > from other LIR's in order to bridge the gap. > > Can somebody tell me why we are paying to be an LIR but are unable to > gain modest extra resources above our initial allocation 3 years ago and > therefore having to resort to renting space privately? > > Perhaps somebody could clarify this please as the last request got to a > point where it was clarified that all the /21 is allocated and > then....nothing... We even were told we had last had an additional > allocation in 2010 which is not true as we joined in 2009 and that is > when we gained the initial and only blocks we have. > > Our first alloc just pushes us into the Small category on its own due to > being a recent-ish LIR and therefore an extra block is unlikely to > increase our fees, is this why? > i'm a little unclear about what you're asking for here - if you handed in a request for a subsequent IPv4 allocation, and it was denied, then you most certainly got an explanation about the reasons. Probably it's just my english skills being impaired by the early morning and lack of coffee, but it don't see you mentioning WHY you couldn't get another allocation. Most likely you just didn't get your documentation right or something, since at this point it should be no problem to get another IPv4 allocation according to the current policy if you get the bureaucracy right. Just talk to the NCC, they certainly will explain everything. We can't really help you here due to lack of information about your situation. PROBABLY the problem is the space you "rented", so it looks like you don't need as much additional space as you're requesting because you already have that. Or you didn't register this stuff right and the NCC doesn't like you anymore for being a bad boy violating policy... But that's just a wild guess. Only the IPRAs can explain. We don't know your request or your ticket details. There is still some bits an pieces left in the RIPE IPv4 Pool. If you can show you need some more and prove your needs according to the current policy, you'll get some of the cake. P.S.: Nice to see you already got an IPv6 allocation - just push your partners and vendors a little more towards it. If they don't see the need for IPv6 at this point of time, you seriously should consider looking for other vendors and partners - next time you come back asking for another IPv4 allocation, it really might be too late. -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE] Senior System- & Network Architect

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees
by Simon Talbot 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

I can’t believe this whole bizarre conversation is starting up again. Remember, RIPE is not a regulator, or a commercial entity. It is a not for profit organisation owned by its members, us. It can only raise the funds that are required to fund its operations plus a small amount for reserves. It is not in a position to make pious judgements on who are the “Good Guys” or operate punitive pricing schemes, that is simply not RIPE’s mandate. Simon Simon Talbot Chief Engineer Net Solutions Europe T: 020 3161 6001 F: 020 3161 6011 www.nse.co.uk<http://www.nse.co.uk/> From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of LeaderTelecom Ltd. Sent: 14 February 2012 11:52 AM To: Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; Ulf Kieber; Cenk Keylan Subject: Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012021401001516] A Whim about next year's fees >IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to > build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways > and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole > Internet. More simple way - price for IPv4 will grow extremly fast during this and next year. When price for IPv4 will be more than price of migration to IPv6 - many operators will switch from IPv4 to IPv6. After that cost of IPv4 will goes down very fast. It will be second "Tulip fever". -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#2012021401001516] в теме письма. -- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 URL: http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: http://verisign.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Verisign URL: http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS 14.02.2012 15:09 - Ben Fitzgerald-O'Connor написал(а): Hi All, IMHO, Smaller ISP’s can take the initiative with the move to IPV6 perhaps – we all need to build momentum and start to deploy IPV6 in a big way, and to put in place 6to4 gateways and other such infrastructure to allow clients connected on IPV6 to access the whole Internet. In many ways smaller ISPs have an advantage over the big ISPs who will have huge amounts of work to do in moving from 4 to 6. In marketing we all also need to stop worrying about running out of IPV4 addresses and start to plan and put in IPV6 addresses. Clients should want to move to IPV6 – once moved across, then this work is done for the next 20 years or so. It has to be done, so we may as well get going and promote IPV6 as the ‘New Internet’ which it is. New networks should start on IPV6 – this way they can be ahead of the curve from the start and have a little pain now in learning new ways of doing things but they save a lot of work later by doing this. IPV4 addresses are worth a lot now but in time they will be obsolete as IPV6 becomes mainstream and we all need to work to make that happen. Replacing old IPV4 only equipment with new equipment that supports IPV6 fully is a great sales opportunity. We need to grasp the nettle and move ahead on this. Regards Ben From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Cenk Keylan Sent: 14 February 2012 09:57 To: Ulf Kieber; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Ulf, As IP4 is limited resource sure it must have a fee, else how will the new commers can access to the IP4 while the large ISP’s have millions of unused IP addresses which they have got from Ripe years ago. As a simple argument, we have an ISP in Turkey which even their license is taken back and they have 100K times more IP addresses then we have and nobody is asking tem to give the IP addresses back and they are keeping the IP4 block as the fee they pay for membership is not important then the IP4 block they are keeping in hand. Have a nice day, Cenk Keylan [Description: cid:image003.jpg@01CB9D2E.07D77BD0] 3C1B Telekomünikasyon ve Internet Hizmetleri Tepe Prime Plaza B101, Eskişehir Yolu 9.km No:266 06800 Çankaya Ankara Turkiye Tel : +90-312-988-0000 Direkt : +90-312-988-1015 Faks : +90-312-241-2888 http://www.3c1b.com<http://www.3c1b.com/> info(a)3c1b.com<mailto:info@3c1b.com> From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of Ulf Kieber Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 11:47 AM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Have a look at http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/faq/faq-general-resour… “IP addresses are a shared public resource and are not for sale.” The fee you pay is not a fee for IP addresses, but a fee for supplied registration services by the RIPE NCC. Please also remember that by making an IP address an accountable ressources and sticking a price tag onto it, taxability in the Netherlands will change, yielding an approx. 25% increase in taxes (and fees). Since I’m a little bit fed up with this discussion now I hereby request to make the fee a real membership fee for the RIPE association; one member, one fee; budget divided by the number of members. Best regards, Ulf Kieber Head of NOC green.ch AG From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> On Behalf Of KOSMOZZ - Info Sent: Montag, 13. Februar 2012 19:26 To: Lu Heng; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Lu, I was thinking the same. Why shouldn’t we all be billed for the amount we are using and may’be pay a fee for the amount that has been reserved and not used? I’ll take this with me to the Taskforce currently brainstorming on Billing matters. Kind regards, Filip Herman filip(a)kosmozz.be<mailto:filip@kosmozz.be> KOSMOZZ -- http://www.kosmozz.be<http://www.kosmozz.be/> | Member of Internet Service Providers Belgium (http://www.ispa.be<http://www.ispa.be/>) Van: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]<mailto:[mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net]> Namens Lu Heng Verzonden: maandag 13 februari 2012 18:44 Aan: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Onderwerp: [members-discuss] A Whim about next year's fees Hi Colleagues: Just had a whim about next year's membership fees, since Ripe will almost certain running out this year, why shouldn't we divided the membership fees as the percentage of the total recourse we have?(mostly IPv4) The total amount of Ripe's IPv4 is known, and by end of this year, the total amount of each LIR's IPv4 is known as well. So why should we just simpy do a math as LIR total amount address(L)/Ripe's total amount of address(R)*100%*Ripe's total need(TN)=Lir's yearly contribution(C) So make the format simple: C=(L/R*100%)*TN Then I think it is "real fair". And as calculate the member fee based on the share of member in the organization's recourse's, it doesn't imply as "selling IP" rumor which has been the main reason we have categories rather than real fair solutions. How you think, my colleagues, and this is just my 2 cents thought. -- -- Kind regards. Lu This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

12 17