- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

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

A Whim about next year's fees
by Lu Heng 14 Feb '12

14 Feb '12

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.

10 10

RIPE NCC Charging scheme task force announcement
by Nigel Titley 20 Jan '12

20 Jan '12

Dear colleagues, As announced, the RIPE NCC Executive Board has initiated a Charging Scheme Task Force to look at the principles of the RIPE NCC Charging Scheme. The task force will have the following objectives: - Define the principles of future Charging Schemes - Propose an improved process for the annual Charging Scheme discussions and adoption - Set a pricing structure for several years for legacy address space holders - Advise the Executive Board on a discussion or resolution for the RIPE NCC General Meeting in April 2011 The task force will not discuss or set any actual fees or prices. Participants of the Task Force ------------------------------ To have an efficient task force, the group will be limited in size. The group will consist of participants from three groups, namely: - RIPE NCC Executive Board - Remco van Mook, Dmitry Burkov - RIPE NCC members - Eva Ornberg, Filip Herman, Olga Fomina, Piotr Strzyzewski and Vladislav Potapov - RIPE NCC staff - Jochem de Ruig, Andrea Cima The Executive Board has selected from each membership category (Extra Small, Small, etc.) one member by drawing lots from those who volunteered. The RIPE NCC staff have informed the people involved and will organise the task force. Because there has been a lot of interest in the charging scheme, there will be a separate mailing list (cs-tf(a)ripe.net) for all those interested and those who want to be informed and discuss this topic. The task force will report back to this mailing list on its progress. You can subscribe to the charging scheme mailing list at: https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cs-tf. Regards, Nigel Titley Executive Board Chairman RIPE NCC

1 0

Who elected to the fee task force?
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi Last time there was a opening for 4 members to join the new member fee task force, was the four member already selected? -- -- 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.

2 2

SOPA and Ripe's police order
by Lu Heng 18 Jan '12

18 Jan '12

Hi colleagues: As a owner of a company have great relation of fighting censorship in China, I feel strongly about today's bill, and should like to share few of my concerns and thoughts about how the things might going. I personally didn't know we have so many regulations in EU about internet before I raised my ISP business. and I didn't realize that receiving legal latter will be part of the business.(as my lawyer count, on average, we receive about 100-200 legal notice per day, and we need to take down over 100 domains each day for the copy right infringement). Futurenally, I also have a company in China, so that legal costs has been kept in a relative low level. In last year short after the Ripe 63, Ripe was ordered by Dutch police force to take measurement of certain IP ranges.with today's US bill, we are very much concerning what government might take lead to in the future of internet. In China, all ISP have to censer themselves before they allow anything going public, otherwise it will results hash punishment up to a level that entire data center can be disconnected just by single offensive website(which in view of certain interest group). Will that happen one day in EU or US, if this trends continues? People might know that many Chinese use VPN service overseas to get over the firewall built by the government, however, as a company have relation in the business, we also see another type of VPN service being offered in China has increase popularity, it was offered to foreign Chinese in order also them to get back China. The reason for them to "to back China" is this: http://www.iqiyi.com/dianying/20120110/376d083f97061688.html Instead of actual video, You will see a quote "This video is only available for mainland China customers due to copyright restrictions" The reason this happen is because large amount of Chinese company(often legally US based) get sued by copyright groups in US/EU, therefore they impose the censorship to censer the content out of China. Does this censorship has anything different from the government censorship in China? Was that both block of certain content because of the interest of certain group of people? I am personally not interested in politics, the right or wrong of the content does not interest me. but as far as I have been to three Ripe meetings, I do feel a strong sense from the persons built the internet(look at how the basic protocol is written, it was very surprise me that anybody can announcing any range that doesn't require some sign of paper), that the internet should be a open and free place to share what you think what you thought, but not a place that police and government can break in at any minus and tell you what to do. As ISP, we are the ground of the internet, if this trends continues, I was very much worried that one day we have to do what Chinese ISPs are doing, we have to look carefully about every website's content and afraid in one middle night our entire business can be shut down due to something that we don't even know of. I thought it was impossible in western country, until I saw how aggressive the SOPA/Protect IP looks like. I don't know if something similar will happen in EU in a near future, my company lawyer told me that as long as we have data center here in EU, we are bounded by the EU laws. So are you, my colleagues. Here is just my 2 cents thought, I would hear from any colleagues that share the same concern as me and my company do. The raising legal costs and restrictions will not only damage the small business, start ups, it also require us one day become some sort of "internet local government" to police our client, and I wish that day never happen. -- -- 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