- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] [#27249] Surprise on renew fees
by network＠privatelayer.com 15 Dec '11

15 Dec '11

Jon, We never asked to join this list anyway. Please remove us from as it is creating SPAM in our ticket system. James Prado Private Layer INC

3 2

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Lu Heng Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 3:41 AM To: paolo.difrancesco(a)level7.it Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > Well, if the new 2012 charging scheme was processed, then it will be based on amount of resource we are using. The 2012 had several bad and quite unfair flaws in many sides of its preparing procedure, its structure and the undercarpet considerations - that is why it didn't see support. >if IP's price goes up, it not only benefits the new comer who got the IP but also >the old ones who already had the IP. If everybody is holding something has same value, >why one party should be paying more while another should be paying less. It's not so easy. I think you do not understand the scheme correctly. "old" LIRs if they want to get a block would be counted in the same way as newcomers for the block, so the fairness of getting addresses is better in the scheme. On the other hand - if the minimal block in "old" times was /16 and the then-new LIR got it and it is still enough or even not used even close to fully - it's unfair to punish the LIR. Many best practices at the time was not so flexible as now - and it led to "waste" in modern point of view, but it's very difficult to change the assignments now (initial criteria is still met) - why the LIR should suffer? Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat

3 2

[#27119] PrivateLayer ticketsystem still on the RIPE members-discuss list ...
by Erik Bais 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

Dear members-discuss moderator / list owner / maintainer, Is it possible to simple remove everyone from Privatelayer from the list, for still having their ticketsystem on the list? And if possible, please do so. The time they had to fix this is insane and if they would actually be reading the list (or their own created tickets.), they could have fixed it months ago. Kind regards, Erik Bais -----Original Message----- From: support(a)privatelayer.com [mailto:support@privatelayer.com] Sent: woensdag 14 december 2011 10:46 To: Erik Bais Subject: [#27119] Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees Dear Valued Private Layer Customer, Our tech support department has received your message in good order and we have assigned a ticket number to your request. The ticket number assigned is: 27119. We are reviewing your ticket and will reply to it shortly. Best Regards, Private Layer INC Tech Support Department support(a)privatelayer.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by poty＠iiat.ru 14 Dec '11

14 Dec '11

1. Newcomers need several special (and not so special, but more "manual") procedures for contract signing, teaching, allocating, assisting first assignments, a lot more supporting, "free entrance" to RIPE meeting ... I think it reasonably costs several cents more? 2. You are right about the membership fee, but every member was once a newcomer and since then pays every year the money, according the current charging scheme. Many of "current" LIRs have already contributed a lot to community (and RIPE NCC) not only by means of fees, but by ideas, solutions... 3. The rules of allocating "then" were different than "now". The "default" block was bigger and the procedures for the distribution of allocated space were not so strictly tough. Why we should punish the LIRs now to abide the rules and best practices? ... (it's only small number of arguments, and - yes - the matter was discussed several times already) Regards, Vladislav Potapov > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss- > bounces(a)ripe.net] On Behalf Of Alexander Zubkov > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 9:50 AM > To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees > > On 12/13/2011 11:32 PM, Michał Margula wrote: > > W dniu 13.12.2011 20:23, LIR pisze: > >> I am new to RIPE and list, and I did not see any conversation of > that kind. > >> > >> Anyway, I find this way of calculating is not fair at all, despite > of used. > >> > >> This model does not compute real usage of resources, but penalizes > >> new entries and gives resources for free to old members. > >> > >> Regards, > >> > >> Tonino > >> > > > > I can't agree. W got our first resources about 5 years ago. First > year > > we were "EXTRA SMALL", and then every year we are categorized > "SMALL", > > altough we requested some more resources. > > > > And does 500 euro per year really makes any difference? Really?? > Let's > > count IPv4 - you got /21 which is 1024 addresess which makes 50 cents > > (per year! about 4 cents a month!!) difference. > > > > And about fairness of that calculation - the later you get resources > > the more are they valuable, and they really are! > > > > This is absolutely correct in case of one-time payment. But membership > fee is regular and you are right - resources are valuable. And this > should be applied to all members, not to newcomers only. > > > ---- > 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

Re: [members-discuss] Surprise on renew fees
by LIR 13 Dec '11

13 Dec '11

Il 13/12/2011 19:54, Rob Golding ha scritto: >> This means every one asking first block allocation after year 2008 will be >> classified SMALL, despite of his real dimensions and resources. >> >> This is quite punishing for new comers like us, and not fair at all as a >> fee computing method. > It's like flights - the later you leave it to travel-date the more expensive > they become. Yes. But you had to book 15 years before your date. Tonino

1 0

IDAQ joins an exclusive club
by Nigel Titley 30 Nov '11

30 Nov '11

I see that IDAQ has joined PrivateLayer in the exclusive club of those members who have subscribed their ticket robots to the RIPE member-discuss list. Welcome to the IDAQ-ticket robot, and congratulations on achieving sentience. We will look forward to your contributions to the discussion list with interest. Nigel (waiting in Moscow airport for my flight back to strike-hit Heathrow)

1 0

What to do
by Comunicaciones ACOTELSA 24 Nov '11

24 Nov '11

Hi all. We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the only way is inform to the WHOIS contact? Thanks in advance. Saludos... =========================================== Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio Comunicaciones y Seguridad Grupo Acotel e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com ------------------------------------------ Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España =========================================== Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure you destroy it. Thank you.

8 8

Re: [members-discuss] What to do
by sslavov＠blizoo.bg 22 Nov '11

22 Nov '11

Contact the Persons in the WHOIS database, your UPLINK Provider AND BLOCK IP RANGE. Best regards. Stoyan > > RIPE, APNIC or any of the other RIRs only handle administrative issues > wrt the allocation and distribution of IP addresses, AS numbers etc. > They have no "power" over the network of any ISP. > > You should contact the persons in the WHOIS, and at the same time, you > should contact your upstream provider and ask them if they can see where > the DOS originates and if they can perhaps block it for you. > > Do remember that IP packets can be spoofed, the source address of the > DOS packets may say "this originated from 243.1.2.3" but perhaps it is a > completely different network that is sending you the packets - your > upstream provider might be able to pinpoint the actual source. > > Mike. > > On 22-11-11 4:41 PM, Comunicaciones ACOTELSA wrote: >> Hi all. >> >> We have detected a DoS from IP of APNIC, from China. >> >> Are there a procedure to inform APNIC or RIPE about the problem or the >> only >> way is inform to the WHOIS contact? >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> Saludos... >> >> =========================================== >> Luis Ángel Lozano Aparicio >> Comunicaciones y Seguridad >> Grupo Acotel >> e-mail: comunicaciones(a)acotelsa.com >> ------------------------------------------ >> Tlf: 983 440274 - 902 194273 Fax:983 548220 >> Oficina 201 - Edificio Galileo, módulo Rojo >> Parque Tecnológico de Boecillo >> 47151 Boecillo (Valladolid) - España >> =========================================== >> >> >> >> >> >> Protección de Datos: ACOTELSA le informa de que los datos facilitados >> por Ud. y utilizados para el envío de esta comunicación serán objeto de >> tratamiento automatizado o no en nuestros ficheros, con la finalidad de >> gestionar la agenda de contactos de nuestra empresa y para el envío de >> comunicaciones profesionales por cualquier medio electrónico o no. Vd. >> podrá en cualquier momento ejercer el derecho de acceso, rectificación, >> cancelación y oposición en los términos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica >> 15/1999. El responsable del tratamiento es ACOTELSA, con domicilio en >> Ronda de Poniente, 3 bajo, 28760 Tres Cantos, Madrid. >> >> Confidencialidad El contenido de esta comunicación, así como el de toda >> la documentación anexa, es confidencial y va dirigido únicamente al >> destinatario del mismo. En el supuesto de que usted no fuera el >> destinatario, le solicitamos que nos lo indique y no comunique su >> contenido a terceros, procediendo a su destrucción. Gracias. >> >> Confidenciality The content of this communication and any attached >> information is confidential and exclusively for the use of the >> addressee. If you are not the addressee, we ask you to notify to the >> sender and do not pass its content to another person, and please be sure >> you destroy it. Thank you. >> >> >> >> ---- >> 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

Re: [members-discuss] Update on police order of 8 November
by Brandon Butterworth 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

> Please keep in mind, I'm not a laywer Likewise but it appears to be totally unnecessary action that establishes precedent for other more intrusive requests later > - These punishable facts are an immediate threat to the Dutch public order. Seems quite unlikely that there will be public disorder as a result of malware, at least to the extent freezing registry entries would prevent. > o The suspects in the US investigation will transfer the control of > the relevant registrations of a couple specific IP ranges in the > public register. > o The suspects in the US investigations will alter the > relevant registration(s) of a specific set of IP ranges in the > public register, unless specifically approved by the FBI of the > US attorney's office for the Southern District of New York. Why would that matter as long as they made an evidence record of what it was at this time. There's lots of things the suspects may do during the course of an investigation, like just live their normal lives. brandon

1 0

Update on police order of 8 November
by Axel Pawlik 16 Nov '11

16 Nov '11

Dear all, In the interest of transparency, I'd like to update you on the Dutch police order issued to the RIPE NCC on 8 November 2011 to temporarily lock a registration of four IP address blocks in the RIPE Registry until 22 March 2012. As mentioned earlier, we are working on full disclosure of the background documents. You can read a copy of the police order here: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/police-order-8-november-20… We will update you if and when any other publishable materials become available. We have received independent legal advice and are in discussion with the appropriate authorities. We intend to pursue this matter further in Dutch court to establish a precedent so that we are certain of our rights regarding such orders. The RIPE NCC is committed to acting in the best interest of its membership and we will continue to inform you and the Internet community on this matter as it progresses. I'd also like to take this opportunity to clarify that we have not withdrawn, removed or reclaimed the address blocks in question. kind regards, Axel

2 2