- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 06 Aug '11

06 Aug '11

big players that don't adapt go the way of the dinosaur. thats how things work. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > The problem is, big players have lots of IPv4 addresses so they don't care > about switching to dual-stack or IPv6. Small LIRs have small networks but > nobody cares about their opinion:) > > Probably charging more $$ to big players will push them to release > not-in-use IPv4 or switch to IPv6 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Sven Olaf Kamphuis > Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011 12:14 PM > To: Redi Tela > Cc: 'Brandon Butterworth'; jblessing(a)llnw.com; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > > there comes a time where you have to ask: are you running a business, or a > museum :P keeping ipv4 around just for old times sake... oh well.. > > -- > Greetings, > > Sven Olaf Kamphuis, > CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG > ========================================================================= > Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 > D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B > BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 > Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 > RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net > ========================================================================= > <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle > http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob > ========================================================================= > > Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this > email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged > and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or > individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or > copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > > > On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Sven Olaf Kamphuis wrote: > >> Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older >> packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of >> older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. >> >> those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. >> >> eyeballs -> few well known sites >> >> and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, > or >> die. >> >> and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if > you >> consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet >> ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) >> >> we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no >> future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing >> models ;), get over it. >> >> >> >> -- >> Greetings, >> >> Sven Olaf Kamphuis, >> CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG >> ========================================================================= >> Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 >> D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B >> BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 >> Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 >> RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net >> ========================================================================= >> <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle >> http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob >> ========================================================================= >> >> Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this >> email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged >> and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or >> individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or >> copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. >> >> >> On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: >> >>> Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for >>> years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a > few >>> 'well-known' sites. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net >>> [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] >>> On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth >>> Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM >>> To: jblessing(a)llnw.com; sven(a)cb3rob.net >>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net >>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme >>> >>>> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >>>> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >>>> filter it. >>> >>> Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you >>> eloquently explained previously) >>> >>>> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >>>> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >>>> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated >>> >>> No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. >>> >>> v6 or die. >>> >>>> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need > an >>>> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >>>> don't announce a single ip out of it :P >>> >>> You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point >>> you see. >>> >>> Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non >>> internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping >>> realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any >>> private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it >>> was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history >>> now. >>> >>> brandon >>> >>> ---- >>> 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. >

1 0

RE: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Sven Olaf Kamphuis 06 Aug '11

06 Aug '11

Yes, sure, ipv4 will be around for quite a few decades to come, in older packet radio networks, military tactical internet, configuration vlans of older equipment, etc, but it has no future on the internet. those "few well known sites" is all it takes, really. eyeballs -> few well known sites and the rest is pretty much -irrelevant-, and simply will have to follow, or die. and yes, we have run dual stack for the past few years (triple stack if you consider that we also run X.25 for emergency networks should the internet ever fail due to military intervention or crisis situations ;) we'd very much like to see the intarrwebz ditch ipv4 however, it has no future, there is no need to develop for it (neither software, nor billing models ;), get over it. -- Greetings, Sven Olaf Kamphuis, CB3ROB Ltd. & Co. KG ========================================================================= Address: Koloniestrasse 34 VAT Tax ID: DE267268209 D-13359 Registration: HRA 42834 B BERLIN Phone: +31/(0)87-8747479 Germany GSM: +49/(0)152-26410799 RIPE: CBSK1-RIPE e-Mail: sven(a)cb3rob.net ========================================================================= <penpen> C3P0, der elektrische Westerwelle http://www.facebook.com/cb3rob ========================================================================= Confidential: Please be advised that the information contained in this email message, including all attached documents or files, is privileged and confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals addressed. Any other use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. On Sat, 6 Aug 2011, Redi Tela wrote: > Have you guys tried IPV6 ? IPv4 is not dead at all, it will be here for > years. There are only about 6K prefixes and you can only browse just a few > 'well-known' sites. > > -----Original Message----- > From: members-discuss-admin(a)ripe.net [mailto:members-discuss-admin@ripe.net] > On Behalf Of Brandon Butterworth > Sent: Friday, August 05, 2011 4:22 PM > To: jblessing(a)llnw.com; sven(a)cb3rob.net > Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme > >> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some >> e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers >> filter it. > > Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you > eloquently explained previously) > >> furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not >> announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand >> them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated > > No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. > > v6 or die. > >> don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an >> /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they >> don't announce a single ip out of it :P > > You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point > you see. > > Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non > internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping > realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any > private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it > was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history > now. > > brandon > > ---- > 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 1

Re: [members-discuss] New Charging Scheme
by Brandon Butterworth 05 Aug '11

05 Aug '11

> regarding the ipv4 address space, we've actually tried to announce some > e-class space over the past days, appearantly, most, if not all, routers > filter it. Interesting, but doesn't matter, v4 is dead, get over it (as you eloquently explained previously) > furthermore, we've found a bunch of legacy ranges, which are not > announced at all, so if the DoD and IBM would be kind enough to hand > them over to ARIN/IANA, that would be appreciated No, that'd just give people an excuse to put off v6 for even longer. v6 or die. > don't see why "the prudential insurance company of america" would need an > /8, clearly they don't see the point of it themselves either, as they > don't announce a single ip out of it :P You're not allocating it to them so it doesn't matter what point you see. Back when it may have been of use I agreed, space allocated for non internet use could have been considered a different non overlapping realm and the entire space used on the internet regardless of any private allocations for non internet use. However that wasn't how it was chosen to be done and again it no longer matters as it's history now. brandon

2 1

Proposal: Changes in charging scheme approval process
by Andrey Semenchuk 05 Aug '11

05 Aug '11

Hello, Current charging scheme approval process has a serious problem: the charging scheme will still be being under discussion after RIPE will calculate the billing score for LIRs. It means that LIRs can't plan their work in the new billing period because they doesn't know their payments I think we need change charging scheme approval process to avoid this situation in future: charging scheme approval process should be finished BEFORE RIPE calculate the billing score for LIRs. -- Best wishes, Andrey Semenchuk Trifle Internet Service Provider (056) 731-99-11 www.trifle.net

3 2

[ncc-announce] NRO NC Call for Nominations - RIPE NCC Service Region
by Axel Pawlik 04 Aug '11

04 Aug '11

[Apologies for duplicate emails] Dear colleagues, There is a call for nominations from the RIPE NCC service region to fill one vacant seat on the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council (NC). The term of Wilfried Woeber, who was appointed to the NRO NC by the RIPE NCC Executive Board in October 2008, ends on 31 December 2011. The RIPE NCC Executive Board will select one representative from the nominees to serve a three-year term on the NRO NCC beginning 1 January 2012. The decision of the Executive Board will be announced at the RIPE 63 Meeting, which will be held in Vienna from 31 October-4 November 2011. The deadline for nominations is 5 October 2011. Any individual residing within the RIPE NCC service region is eligible for nomination, except Regional Internet Registry (RIR) staff members. Self-nominations are permitted. There is no limit on the amount of terms someone can serve on the NRO NC. All nominees may submit a written statement in support of their nomination for publication on the RIPE NCC website. Other individuals may express support for nominated individuals that will be published on the RIPE NCC website. Details on how to make nominations or expressions of support are available at: http://www.ripe.net/nronc2011-process Expressions of support will also be published on the RIPE NCC website. To find out more about the NRO NC and the election process, please see: http://www.ripe.net/nronc2011 Regards, Axel Pawlik Managing Director RIPE NCC Important Dates: 5 October 2011: Deadline for NRO NC nominations 7 October 2011: Deadline for all confirmed nominations to be posted on the RIPE NCC website 31 October-4 November 2011: Result of selection announced at RIPE 63 Meeting in Vienna

1 0

Autoresponders and ticket systems
by Christopher Kunz 04 Aug '11

04 Aug '11

Hi, after taking part in the discussion, the following things happened: 1. I'm informed that Vicente Valero is out of the office. Twice. 2. I am the assignee of tickets #10982 and #10984 (probably 10985, after this message) in Private Layer Inc.'s ticket system. 3. I have issued two orders with Telekom's technical services. 4. I received two empty replies from <null(a)internet-fr.net>. 5. Anexia GmbH opened two tickets for me as well (663571, 148322). 6. Last, but not least, I now have access to the Solutios support center. To all colleagues involved in this, would you please: a) cancel tickets, accounts and whatever my postings triggered in your automatic systems. b) Remove my e-mail address from your databases immediately. c) Remove your auto-responding robots from this mailing list. At least make them honor "Precedence: bulk" headers. Thanks, Regards, and good night. --ck -- Filoo GmbH Christopher Kunz, Geschäftsführer Web: http://www.filoo.de/ E-Mail: chris(a)filoo.de Tel.: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -11 Fax: (+49) 0 52 48 / 1 89 84 -20 Please sign & encrypt mail wherever possible, my key: C882 8ED1 7DD1 9011 C088 EA50 5CFA 2EEB 397A CAC1 Moltkestraße 25a 33330 Gütersloh, Germany HRB4355, AG Gütersloh Geschäftsführer: S.Grewing, J.Rehpöhler, C.Kunz Folgen Sie uns auf Twitter: http://twitter.com/filoogmbh

1 0

Response to queries on Charging Scheme Models
by Jochem de Ruig 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

Dear colleagues, Many thanks for raising these issues. This feedback is valuable for the Executive Board and Senior Management in arriving at the Charging Scheme to be presented. In response to members' queries, the two Charging Scheme models aim to maintain, as they currently are, the sponsoring contracts between LIRs and End Users for PI assignments or ASNs. It may not have been fully clear, but the Direct Assignment Users (DAUs) mentioned in the Charging Scheme document only refers to the DAUs that have a direct contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. This follows from RIPE Policy Proposal 2007-01. The XXS category in the charging schemes caters for these DAUs. Also, there is no intention to increase the RIPE NCC financial reserve. The service fees mentioned are based on: - The current expense forecast for 2012 - The current membership growth forecast - Running a break-even budget (not adding to the RIPE NCC financial reserve) Many members noted that the fees in both models are identical. To support the discussion, we will provide an indication of the fees in Model 2 based on current PI assignment information. This will be available tomorrow. Note that the fees shown in the models are indications. At this point in time, it is not possible to properly estimate the number of PI assignments there will be and how much revenue these PI assignments will generate. This is also due to the fact that Phase 3 of Policy Proposal 2007-01 is ongoing. Because the revenue for both models will be identical, the fees in Model 2 will be lower per category than those in Model 1. We will update the pages with the change matrix, give the expected number of members per category for the two Charging Scheme models and show indicated fees for Model 2. We will also add clarification regarding PI resource holders. This will be available shortly. Kind regards, Jochem de Ruig Chief Financial Officer RIPE NCC

4 4

idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
by ZeXoTeK IT-Services | Jens Winter 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

Hello, yes the idea from Christian Wittenhorst is great. I think this is the best charging scheme for fairness over all members. By jens

3 2

[ncc-announce] New RIPE NCC Charging Scheme Models: Feedback Required
by Nigel Titley 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

Dear colleagues, The RIPE NCC Executive Board will present a new Charging Scheme to the membership at the RIPE NCC General Meeting (GM) to be held in Vienna on 2 November 2011. The Executive Board is working with the RIPE NCC Senior Management on various options that could be included in the Charging Scheme. It would like to solicit feedback from members on two Charging Scheme models before deciding on a final version to present at the GM. The two models are based on established RIPE NCC organisational principles. Both models, as well as an explanation of the models' features and differences, are presented at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/ncc/gm/november-2011/ripe-ncc-proposed-ne… The RIPE NCC Executive Board welcomes any feedback on the proposed models. You can provide your feedback by using the online form or by sending an email directly to agm(a)ripe.net. After considering the feedback from the membership on the proposed Charging Scheme models, the Executive Board will decide which model it will present to the membership at the GM. If you wish to discuss the proposed new Charging Scheme models with other RIPE NCC members, please start a discussion on the members-discuss(a)ripe.net mailing list. Information about this list can be found online at: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/member-support/info/membership-mailing-li… We look forward to hearing your comments. Regards, Nigel Titley RIPE NCC Executive Board Chairman

6 9

Re: [members-discuss] idea Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst
by Xavier BEAUDOUIN 03 Aug '11

03 Aug '11

+1 Association kazar "Marcel Edler (Optimate-Server.de)" <medler(a)optimate-server.de> a écrit : >Hello Christian 'wiwi' Wittenhorst, > >this idea sounds great and should be fair for all members: > /22 EUR 502 > /21 EUR 904 > /20 EUR 1308 > /19 EUR 1716 > /18 EUR 2132 > /17 EUR 2565 > /16 EUR 3031 > /15 EUR 3562 > /14 EUR 4224 > /13 EUR 5148 > /12 EUR 6597 > /11 EUR 9094 > /10 EUR 13688 > /9 EUR 22477 > /8 EUR 39654 > >In new charging scheme I have to pay 5000 Eur for 73.440IPs >(1x/16,1x/19) like an ISP with 1.024.000 IPs (/12)! >I pay 0,068 Euro for each IP. >The ISP with 1.024.000IPs pays only 0,00488 Euro for each IP. >I have to pay !!14!! times more than the other ISP! > >I prefer Christian's idea. > >Regards, >Marcel Edler >Geschäftsinhaber > >---- >If you don't want to receive mails from the RIPE NCC Members Discuss list, please log in to your LIR Portal account at: http://lirportal.ripe.net/ >First click on General and then click on Edit. >At the bottom of the page you can add or remove addresses.

1 0