- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Sebastian Abt 12 Jul '12

12 Jul '12

Am 10.07.2012 um 15:18 schrieb "Rob Golding" <rob.golding(a)othellotech.net>: > Perhaps a better approach would be to push for the overall budget to be reduced by 10% per year _every-year_, helping the RIR focus on what it's there for, and all the extraneous items that we fund as RIPE members can start to die off ? +1 in principle. Exact percentage should be assessed empirically. regards sebastian

4 4

Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea?
by Jamie Stallwood 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

A flat fee would disadvantage small members even more as the "regular" fee would apply. I don't want to see membership being priced out so I support the simpler banded system proposed. Kind regards Jamie Stallwood Sent from my Android Secured with Good (www.good.com) Managed by Imerja -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Jacob [ripe-ncc-members-list(a)internet24.de] Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 01:15 PM GMT Standard Time To: Rob Evans Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net; exec-board(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] is the self-assessment model really a good idea? On Mon, 2012-07-09 at 21:45 +0100, Rob Evans wrote: > This, I suppose, comes down to communication. These are probably the same companies that, when presented with a bill > that says "we've assessed you into the 'regular' category, please feel free to let us know if you feel that is inappropriate," > will just sort out the bank transfer without further question (give or take whatever level of 'sending round the heavies' the NCC must usually do). Designing a system that not only continues to make the vast majority of LIRs pay far more per IP address than the big LIRs do, but on top of that also makes your fee subject to some sort of "insider" knowledge? As an employee of a smaller LIR I cannot see how this makes this new charge scheme worth having over the current one. As for the simplicity of this approach, simply charging everyone the same amount or using a proportional system like APNIC seems far simpler and more transparent from my point of view, and doesn't add the incalculable factor of self-assessment changes to the mix of the thing. ---- 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. -- Imerja Limited Tel: 0870 8611488 | Fax: 0870 8611489 | 24x7 ISOC: 0870 8611490 | Web: www.imerja.com Registered Office: Paragon House, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG Registered in England and Wales No. 5180119 VAT Registered No. 845 0647 22 ISO Registered Firm No. GB2001527 This email is confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to which it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s) you should not use, copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it, since to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately by email reply and delete it from your system. E-mail messages are not secure and attachments could contain software viruses which may damage your system. Whilst every reasonable precaution has been taken to minimise this risk, Imerja Limited cannot accept any liability for any damage sustained as a result of these factors. You are advised to carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment. Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the author and do not represent those of Imerja Limited unless otherwise stated.

4 5

New charging model
by eifel-net GmbH 10 Jul '12

10 Jul '12

Hello, for us the new charging model seems to be unbalanced. Bigger LIR, as for example big telcos (Deutsche Telekom in germany for example with lots of ip-adresses in use) seem to pay much less for the service for each ipv4 they use, compared to small onces, as there is a fee-limit of aprox. 5000 EUR yearly. For smaller companies the new model will be an increase in cost, as the border to small as /22 is not high enough, so that they will be billed as regular (thus 50% of big LIR!). Next problem is, that big LIR may pick category "small" without beeing punished. Peter ============================================== Angaben gem. § 35a GmbHG ============================================== EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH vertreten durch die Geschäftsführer Michael Bergeritz Dipl.- Kfm. Peter Thiele Bendenstr.31-33, 53879 Euskirchen Tel. 0900-524 5 524 (0,99 EUR/Min aus dem deutschen Festnetz, Preis kann für Anrufe aus den Mobilfunknetzen abweichen.) (Installationsunterstützung Einrichten Internet-Zugang) Tel. 02251-9700-36 Fax. 02251-9700-37 (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) eMail: info(a)eifel-net.net (nicht nutzbar für Werbezwecke) EFN eifel-net Internet-Provider GmbH ist eingetragen im Handelregister des Amtsgericht Bonn unter Registernummer HRB11527. Die Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer lautet DE186 267 460. Wir teilen hiermit offenkundig mit, daß wir keine Zusendung von Werbung per eMail oder Fax wünschen, wenn wir dieser vorher nicht ausdrücklich schriftlich zugestimmt haben.

11 14

Re: [members-discuss] Proposal for New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Model
by Lu Heng 09 Jul '12

09 Jul '12

Hi Thanks for reply. On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Nigel Titley <nigel(a)titley.com> wrote: > On 09/07/2012 14:43, Lu Heng wrote: >> >> Hi Nigel: >> >> Thanks for sharing this. >> >> Correct me if I was wrong, to put in plain english for this long formal >> thing: >> >> most pay 2k-2.5k, large ones pay 4-5k, and very small one pay 1k. per year >> base. > > Yes, correct > >> >> If that is the case, then only the current "small" category people's >> fee are raised, is that correct? > > Yes > >> >> And I am not very clear about "Appendix III: Procedure for Members >> Selecting their own Membership Category", does that means everybody >> can select their membership category in which has no relevant to their >> resource count? so french telecom can select as a small one? > > No, you are absolutely right. But membership selections will be published, > so everyone can see that France Telecom is defrauding the rest of the > members by self declaring as small. We do however think that the majority of > members are honest and have a good idea of their own size. I think you might be right about french telecom as they are national company. But for many other business ISPs, if there is no punishment or if there is only counting on shame and blames(put on Frank's word), I would say a lot large LIR would go for regular if not small.(if they being blamed, they always can find XXX company have more resource than us but also selected small etc, as long as they are not the top on the list(so to say the largest one in small category), they will stay there even blame exsits), and another thing is, I am not very sure how well this self-declared system will work. And how you plan to publish the list? will that list based on name or the amount of resource count? e.g. Small LIR: A company /13 B company /14 C company /15 etc. If this is how it published, I think it might put quite some pleasure on the guy at top of the list in each category. If not, then I think a lot people can simply hide their name into the small LIRs as I don't think many of them are well know or many people well investigate other people's fees. > >> >> I think it might be a mis-reading here could you help me to understand >> it, thanks. > > No, you have understood perfectly. > > All the best > > Nigel -- 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.

1 0

Updates from RIPE on the DNS ussye
by Zoe O'Connell 25 Jun '12

25 Jun '12

I have seen no useful update from RIPE this morning, but I need something to pass on to internal staff and customers. Has anyone got anything? Opening a ticket is pointless as it won't get actioned quickly.

5 5

Re: [members-discuss] [Ticket#2012061901001911] Need help. Can't remove routes for ex Assigned PA.
by LeaderTelecom Ltd. 19 Jun '12

19 Jun '12

Dear Members, Please help what better to do in this case. We have allocated PA. From this space we Assigned PA to customer. Customer has own AS and he created routes. Route objects doesn't have our mnt-by. He has another carrier. The customer to which we have assiged PA space sending a lot of mails to Hotmail. We are receiving thousands complains per day from Hotmail. We suggested to block this IPs for Hotmail. They tell that it can be done only in automatic mode when hotmail will receive many complains for this IPs. We already found IPs in some black lists. RIPE position in this case. While routes doesn't have RIPE mnt record - they can't do anything. Routes should be removed by our ex customer. Ex customer position. He won't remove routes until we will return money back. And tell us that he doesn't send any e-mails - all was made by his customers. In our agreement written that we don't return money back in this case. And if we will return money back - anyway we don't have any warranty of removing routes. Questions: 1. How can we restrict using this routes right now? 2. How can we remove wrong routes (see an example bellow)? Additional information: ------------------------------ Example of route: route: xx.xx.xx.0/24 descr: route for xxxxxxxxxxx origin: asYYYY mnt-by: zzzzz-mnt source: RIPE # Filtered Where: - xx.xx.xx.0/24 - IPs from our allocation (Assigned PA). - ASyyyy - AS our ex customer. - zzzzz-mnt - MNT of our ex customer. -- Alexey Ivanov General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd.

10 19

Reverse DNS issue - zone still not working from ripe DNS server
by Giuseppe Tanzilli - Serverplan 14 Jun '12

14 Jun '12

Hi, after the issue the ripe services had today evening, we still have one network whre delegation for reverse is still not working. Of course this is a nightmare as all mail traffic is affected. Anyone know a way to contact ripe support outside of office hours ? thanks -- -------------------------------------------------- Giuseppe Tanzilli Serverplan

4 4

Interesting IP count
by Lu Heng 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi Colleuages: Today I come across an very interesting article which I'd like to share with your guys and see what your guys think about it. http://ilia.ws/archives/236-ISP-Popularity-by-Domain-Count.html If what said in the article was true(which it should be as all the data from the article should be public data), if all the cable network start to use NAT, just in sense of domains, we might have IP supply for few more decades. And it would be very interesting if someone from Ripe NCC can share with us what is the most IP consuming business in the planet. In which, is that service can use NAT in sometime future? I talked to an UK telecom provider one day in a ripe lunch, he told me that their network is already partly using NAT(sorry I didn't remember his name, but I am sure he is on this mailing list), and he only need a /21 for entire network. And another thing was, I heard from one of my friend in the Apanic meeting, that someone is selling entire A class there for 10 USD/ IP. We don't know if there is already some successful story there regarding IP sales. But seems to me, based on what happened on Asian now, at least in China, as I heard from many of my colleagues there, there was no real shortage there at this time. No body goes bankrupt because of no IPs left. So that raise an interesting point, since 60% of the world domain is in fact wasted, is that the same story with IP usage. After all, we allocated almost half of the pool before RIR even exists. The current way of IP distributing results a very noneffective way of "past business" IP usage as well(e.g. someone changed their business from cable business to an enterprise business, of course that guy will not return Ripe NCC his additional free 2 M IPs). So when their is a real market for IPv4, and all the latency space come to sale, will we last much much longer than everybody expected? We our-self have few dozen of enterprise customers, and they are already paying 3-5 USD/ month /IP for years, as asking them to re-program their software and re-provision their business into IPv6, the cost will be enormous for them, and one more thing is, most software writers don't really like IPv6, as it is hard to remember and hard to type(it will be a whole lot easier if you just remember the IP and type it every time you have to do so, rather than copy paste, we all know the reason). So, even IP price eventually raise to 30USD even 50USD, it is still very hard for them to switch it over to IPv6 as long as they don't have IPv6-only client, because they are paying this amount of money for IP per year anyway. Another thing is, one thing aside from RIR meetings and ISP meetings, we didn't really hear a lot about IPv6. IPv6 come into developer is still something new and interesting, and one guy I talked in the IPv6 workshop in the Ripe64, a software developer for an Austria local company, who don't even know that IPv6 has been around for almost a decades. Since Ripe is almost finish it's public pools, my last question is, will one day all the wasted IP address being effectively picked up because of existing marketplace, and that market place will last us another 3 decades before we really going to IPv6 ear? Go Ipv6 Pro Last forever(this reason doesn't really come into play because it this can be a reason convince enterprise customer then it should be done 10 years ago.). unlimited amount of address space.(same as above) cost reasons. con: need new router new config new practice and testing almost every part of the business(from software to hardware). very hard to remember and write. (welcome to add more on this list) IPv4 pro you know how it works it works for all of our business life. it is easy to remember con cost reasons. But let's look at how much we are paying Ripe NCC now, for large ones, they are paying more coffee in the office than they are paying Ripe thing. So does that really hurts them when they pay 20USD per IP, look at their margin and their current costs structure, I would say for most business, it should be fine. If there is enough supply in the market for next decades, and keep the price well below 50 USD per IP, I believe 99% of business would accept this price and go on with their life. History already tell us most of us don't look too far to the future(otherwise we are already there). Hope my a bit of 2 cents can get more interesting thoughts come around. -- -- 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.

11 20

Re: [members-discuss] Interesting IP count
by Alexandr Saroyan 06 Jun '12

06 Jun '12

Hi, Dear friends, Don't forget that idea of the Internet is that each single host should be able to communicate to any other single host. I strongly believe and I think everyone on this mailing list sure that there are many approaches to live with IPv4. It is time to understand that all that are temporary solutions. Your life will become more and more hard if you go deeper and deeper with temporary solutions. There is class of "Specialists" for whom it is easier to deploy a temporary solution and say 'Hah it works' instead of making a bit effort to deploy something permanent. Each LIR is piece of the Internet - don't trust strategy of your piece to such lazy "Specialists". Don't think like "I need a solution", think like "I need stable, reliable and long lasting solution". Internet is in production service, it is not your grandmother's home LAN, each of you must feel responsibility. Temporary solution is bad for production and permanent solution is only and only good thing for growth and stability of any production system like Internet is. And finally: Stop counting IP addresses, just do your contribution to IPv6 deployment by deploying it within your piece of the Internet. As fast as we converge to IPv6 as fast we will remove all the bad stuff like NAT and will finally stop counting IP addresses. Best. /Alex -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Rob Golding Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 6:04 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Interesting IP count Lu Heng wrote ... > So, US are using 40% of total world IP supply for it's 10% of world > internet user base, while asian for years, is using about 10% of world > IP address to supply 40% of internet user base. > > In which, tells us that if US can free us even half of it's IP address > space, that will supply us maybe another decades. You make a *very* incorrect assumption: That the main use of IP addresses is "access" to the internet - completely ignoring all the devices/systems/networks/etc that hold those services you are accessing - the bulk of which are in the EU and US. IPv6 is not a new idea. Dual-Stacking is not a new idea. IMHO if you're still deploying systems and devices that only work v4 your business is about to die - attaching a bit of NAT based life-support isn't going to save it. Rob ---- 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

Interesting IP count
by Lu Heng 05 Jun '12

05 Jun '12

Hi On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 01:54:09AM +0200, Lu Heng wrote: >> In which, tells us that if US can free us even half of it's IP address >> space, that will supply us maybe another decades. > > This would be very ill-spent effort. > > If we do the same stupid things a few more decades, like "write new software > with IPv4 only, sell millions of phones and other gadgets with IPv4 only", > migration to something reasonable will be much *harder*. > > If we had done the IPv6 thing 5 years ago already, hardly any mobile > device would have been affected - today, there's millions of iThings and > Androids that don't support IPv6 on 3G - stupid and avoidable pain. > You are perfectly right, but in the real business world, 99% company operate exactly like how western country works--every CEO is in office for current amount of time, and most of them worry much more about this Q rather than 5 years later in which he might not even in office any more. So if today cost him 10m to fix the problem for 5 years, or cost him 20m to fix the problem forever, not many of them will go for 20m option. The real reason behind it, is just like Jeff said in the IPv6 workshop, most of us are technical people, with not real much of business practice in mind. > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -- -- 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. -- -- 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.

1 0