---

Doru Serdin Network Manager Office: +4 031 82 52 657 E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.

 

Thank you very much for your opinion Doru Serdin !
Thank you very much for your opinion Kaj Niemi !
Thank you very much for your opinion Kai Siering !

Down here wrote comments to every one of you (combined in one mail to not bloat the list).

"1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you
distribute the apple to them ? "
Your analogy is ..... lacking.
RIPE members are not hungry children who can't get their own food and RIPE
is not anyone's caretaker.
Resources are held by RIPE members (AKE the children) and transfers are made
every day, some people just don't want to pay for IPv4 simply because in the
past they were given out for free when needed.

Some members not are only hungry, they are starving for INR (waiting queue list). My analogue is as much as close to the current situation, if you have better one explain it please. RIPE NCC always were, are, and will be care taker / arbiter (in case you close your LIR, what will you do with your ASN and IPV6 ? will "sell" them too ? or will return them to RIPE pool for redistribution ?)

You appear to simply want IPv4, not want to pay for said IPv4 and are
looking for changes that would benefit you at the expense of those that
already have that IPv4 available.

Do you have any proofs for these your words ? I appeal you show such proofs publicly here ! Otherwise we can assume your statement as slander and you as lier.
Luckily this mailing list is public and all messages are logged, you can go find and show us with quote, which I have wrote that these are my intentions.

Now IPv4 has been distributed already, it's gone, deal with it. Either use
IPv6 or buy/rent IPv4 from other LIRs. The solution exists for everyone who
wants IPv4, it's called money.

No the [re]distribution process is endless process. For all INR there will be always in/out actions from the pool. From a registry perspective, it makes no difference whether we are talking about IPV4/IPV6/ASN. All INR should be treated by the same universal rules. If we have a shortage of IPV4 today, it could be also ASN or IPV6 tomorrow.

I on the other hand only want RIPE to spend less money in order for everyone
to have to pay less in membership fees in the future.
If you want to have a membership fee based on held resources, then the
voting power for each LIR should be proportional to that membership fee.

I have a proposal for you: Transfer all your LIR resources for free to my company LIR. We will do a contract with your company, and I will provide you registry services for *some* time. We will charge you with 1/4 from our LIR anual fee and will give you 1/4 from our vote right. All aspects of your logic will be filled:
1. Company to Company contract for INR, and not RIR to LIR (LIR to LIR contracts about INR for money)
2. Less fee for your company.
3. Propotioning voting power of your fee.

Do you agree mr Doru Serdin ?


----------
To: Kaj Niemi

RIPE-639 specifically mentions in its scope that rights to hold, use or transfer (and remember transfers do not need to be free) "are not addressed or restricted" by it. It also mentions that any existing or future policies do not apply to legacy holders unless it is explicitly included in the other policy.

Citate in point 1.2 from ripe-639:
"Any existing or future RIPE policy referring to resources shall not apply to legacy resources unless the policy explicitly includes legacy resources in its scope."

And because I am talking for a change in ripe-639 (update) my statements are prety valid. ----> Change in policy that include legacy resources in its scope.

Another one point here, in the next 2-5 years we the network operators access/content ISP, maybe will completely drop to rely on an old inetnum/inet6num routing information and will switch entirely to ROA/rpki mechanisms. So what will be the purpouse and usage of these legacy resources then ? No one will forward to/from these networks, so why should the register still support them ? The purpose of RIR registers is to provide adequate information about GLOBAL INTERNET PUBLIC RESOURCES wich operators to use for guarantee normal internet work and fraud prevention, not for registering someone's private intranets.

RIPE-822 mentions that assignments are valid as long as the original
criteria the assignment was based on is valid and the assignment is
registered in the database. It also mentions something about fairness.

You are refering to point 6.3 wich describe LIR to end user assignment. We are talking for point 5. RIPE NCC to LIR allocations.

In practice, whether you want it or not, holder equals owner and holding
equals ownership.

All laws and lawers in EU and in 99% of the world will tell you right oposite. You dont own part of the road on the highway where your car is, just because you pay tax your car to be on the road. You can use it, hold it (for some time), but you can not go drill it dig it take a part of it and sell it, because your car is on top of it and it is "your" property.

One cannot sell or rent something that one do not own or
have the rights to. Doing so would constitute some kind of fraud. People
sell and buy and rent these daily.

In practice it is kind of a fraud indeed. But it is regulated by contract between companies / personals. If I want somebody to pay me for the air he/she breath, finding person whom agree to pay me, and then we make official contract, how to classify it ? Human stupidity is limitless, but to what extent exploiting it is legal or legally prohibited is a stretch question.

As for the apples. 1. in three or 4 parts depending on whether you're
willing to sacrifice yourself in favor of your progeny, 2. you should look
into buying futures to lock in the price of apples as you are producing a
lot daily (not financial advice), 3. you buy apples from someone else.

For 1, now you know what RIPE NCC must do with the IPV4 space, and as a parrent you will cut the apple on 3 equal pieces, because every normal parrent love equal all its own kids, and always is ready to sacrifice self in favor of progeny.

For 2 Even it not very standart answer, it shows what have to be made with IPV6 and ASN INR, RIPE NCC should lock part of his budget and on that resources too. for the future when IPV4 will be totaly unusable. Also soon or later you will go to question 3 (nothing is forever, soon or later your tree will die - IPV6/ASN will be exhausted)

For 3 You can not just buy apples from somewhere, INR are not magicaly show up from somewhere and somebody to sell them to you, they are finite numbers. To produce new INR you need decades in developing, clear and implementing new standarts all over the world (as you can see with IPV6 integration), and another decades to make everybody start using it. Thats why we also need a guard mechanisms to prevent wastage and rapid unreasonable depletion.

Now combine all and find common point, with wich we can achive all key targets. And tell what strategy we should have to complete the goals.

----------
To: Kai Siering

All facts you are showing are true, but such a policy was a mistake, and we _must_ not repeat the same mistakes again and again. Today the main focus is on IPV4, but tomorow these talks will be applied on IPV6. Then again LIR-X will say... "Hey why LIR-Z hold /4 IPV6, and pay same fee as LIR-X wich holds only /32 IPV6 ?". In one of previous mails someone gave example with cogent 200M flow from INR (btw such sum is pocket money for one of the biggest T1 carriers, and such huge company), and from 200M do you beleave they can not contribute 1M to the register from wich they earn ?

We need clear fair INR distribution rules / policies / charing fees, not related of the time line or resource shortage / previous historical distributions. We need RIPE NCC to be resource distribution arbiter between us, because human nature is to want more and more, to be greedy. RIPE NCC have to start look at its LIRs as to own childrens, whom can not be separated on categories or be disriminated on some signs. This is the only way RIPE NCC to have stable future and guarantee propper budget to operate. Otherwise the RIPE will lose the trust of his own members.
That is what I am fighting for, loosing my time, and writing tons of emails here.


Ivaylo Josifov
VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
+359 52 969393
Varna, Bulgaria


On Mon, 29 Apr 2024, Doru Serdin wrote:

"1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how will you
distribute the apple to them ? "
Your analogy is ..... lacking.
RIPE members are not hungry children who can't get their own food and RIPE
is not anyone's caretaker.
Resources are held by RIPE members (AKE the children) and transfers are made
every day, some people just don't want to pay for IPv4 simply because in the
past they were given out for free when needed.
You appear to simply want IPv4, not want to pay for said IPv4 and are
looking for changes that would benefit you at the expense of those that
already have that IPv4 available.
Now IPv4 has been distributed already, it's gone, deal with it. Either use
IPv6 or buy/rent IPv4 from other LIRs. The solution exists for everyone who
wants IPv4, it's called money.
I on the other hand only want RIPE to spend less money in order for everyone
to have to pay less in membership fees in the future.
If you want to have a membership fee based on held resources, then the
voting power for each LIR should be proportional to that membership fee.
--

____________________________________________________________________________
Doru Serdin
Network Manager
Office: +4 031 82 52 657
E-mail: doru.serdin@mediasat.ro

www.mediasat.ro

www.alonia.ro

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you
are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery
of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to
anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the
sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer
does not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of my firm shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.

?

On 29.04.2024 3:18 PM, ivaylo wrote:

            I think it?s great we are being creative with the
            ideation of the models but?

            Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I
            agree with Nick ;)

            Distribution in the past has been needs based (based
            on existing or
            projected need). It's done.


      I dont see how the word "fair" can be vague. When you dont have
      shortage of the resource it purely means "depend on your needs"
      (current situation with IPV6, ASN). But when you run on the
      limit it means equal (IPV4).

      Let me ask you 3 questions:

      1. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and just one apple how
      will you distribute the apple to them ?
      2. If you have 3 own hungry childrens and 1000 apples, but
      tomorow your apple tree can give you another 1000 apples ?
      3. If you have 3 own hungry childrens 1000 apples, but you old
      apple tree is dead and that food is all you have for undefined
      period of time until your new not seeded yet apple tree grow and
      start giving you apples ?

      When you answer me of these 3 questions you will see and what
      _MUST_ mean of the word -->fair<-- is for RIPE. And when you
      find the common point of your answers you will know what RIPE
      NCC must do.

      Kaj, you talk so much about lawsuits, but can you give a citate,
      or point to RIPE policy or agreement, where it is said that
      allocated from RIPE *INR to the LIRs are not subject of change,
      not subject of their quantity change, and they are distributed
      for undefined period of time ?

      If there are still people or companies which mistake the word
      "hold" with the word "own" is entirely their problem. Nor RIR,
      LIR or end user can "own" *INR. They just can hold and operate
      with given INR for defined period of time (look at the RIPE
      documents and contracts, then tell me where is used the word
      "own"). The funny part is that the only way personal or company
      to be identified as authority of the given resource is the
      register itself. If the register stop functioning no one will
      know which *INR you can operate with. So if you screw (lawsuits)
      the register you are screwing and your own interests.

      *INR - Internet Number Resources. Any Internet identifiers such
      as IP addresses (IPv4, IPv6) and Autonomous System Numbers.
      (Citate from RIPE documents)

      One _OBLIGATION_ of RIPE NCC is to care for *fair* distribution
      of the resources across the LIRs in the region. And am not
      saying it is subject of member's wish or vote how the INR have
      been / are / will be distributed, I am saying it _MUST_ be
      fundamental rule that RIPE NCC must apply to guarantee its
      future, and it must not depend on any contractor or requestor
      wish.

      ----
      About RIPE-639

      The policy:
      https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-639/

      Mr. Xavier Le Bris report from 12.01.2024
      (Big thanks for his work and efforts):
      https://labs.ripe.net/author/xavier/10-years-of-legacy-policy/

      I dont see anywhere the RIPE register is _obligated_ to keep
      legacy resources records for undefined time. I only read the
      RIPE register is _authoritive_ for these INR. With other words
      the data for legacy resources are holded in the register by good
      will. And there is no any obstacle to _NOT_ have deadline to
      keep doing this (in point 2.6). Also from the report 9% of 12 x
      /8 IPV4 blocks (nearly full /8 IPV4 block) is with undefined
      status. Another legacy holders which holds nearly 30% of the INR
      are out of any contracts or touch. So where is the benefit to
      keep holding such records ? Will the register be more acurate -
      NO ! Will the memebers will benefit of unusing nearly /8 - NO !
      Are these legacy holders contribute something to the RIPE NCC -
      NO ! Correct me if I am wrong please.

      ------
      About the claim "Last year base of the members rejected category
      based charging scheme, we will not offer it again". As I
      remember offered model B for 2024 also was not supported
      (rejected) , why it is offer for 2025 again ? When we take a
      decision what to offer and what not is rely on principle or on
      personal subjective opinion ?

      For 2024:
https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_-_Price_Increase_10_-_RIPE_NC
      C_Charging_Scheme_2024.pdf

      For 2025:
https://www.ripe.net/media/documents/Option_B_RIPE_NCC_Charging_Scheme_2025
      .pdf

      To note that I and organisations I present are against category
      based charging schemes which will put the main load over the
      small to medium resource holders (LIRs), and will favoritize the
      biggest (what was offered in the last year).



      Ivaylo Josifov
      VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
      +359 52 969393
      Varna, Bulgaria


      On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Kaj Niemi wrote:

            I think it?s great we are being creative with the
            ideation of the models but?

            Fair is a very vague yet complicated concept. Here I
            agree with Nick ;)

            Distribution in the past has been needs based (based
            on existing or
            projected need). It's done.

            Any real implementation of forcing a "fair
            re-redistribution" of RIR
            assigned resources, as you suggest, will lead in
            lawsuits. Whether it would
            be 1, 10 or 1000 doesn't matter. The association
            will not have the financial
            resources and time to handle those. Probably not the
            best use of LIR fees,
            either. I doubt anyone in legal would ever ACK this.

            Any of the companies holding address space that
            RIPE-639 refers to might not
            have an interest, or even be aware of the "benefits"
            of being a RIPE LIR
            themselves. Yes, they don't know about RPKI either,
            usually. Legacy reverse
            DNS might be enough. Many of these are
            multinationals in non-tech sectors
            who have gotten addresses before the RIR system
            existed. Some of these got
            addresses around the time classless routing came
            along from their vendors
            who themselves had gotten the addresses from IANA
            just by asking. Some of
            these do not route the addresses on the internet,
            some others do, etc. etc.
            Again, ruining someone's day by "reclaiming" - let's
            call it what it really
            is, hijacking - address space that hasn't been RIR
            assigned will certainly
            lead to costly lawsuits and claims of damages as
            above.

            Don't think a "Pigouvian tax" would work either as
            the alternative is always
            for the holder to sell or rent the addresses. I
            think it'll lead to more
            consolidation of addresses to the cloud providers.
            Probably again not what
            was intended originally. Any added cost would
            eventually be shifted to the
            customers one way or another. Apropos that, Cogent
            is raising a 200M note
            secured by a bunch of IPv4 addresses and rental cash
            flows. Addresses have a
            significant value as collateral just as stable cash
            flows do.


            :)



            Kaj

            Sent from my iPad

___________________________________________________________________________
            _
            From: members-discuss
            <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of
            ivaylo
            <ivaylo@bglans.net>
            Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 9:26 PM
            To: Massimiliano Stucchi <max@stucchi.ch>
            Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net
            <members-discuss@ripe.net>
            Subject: Re: [members-discuss] GM topic

            Thank you for this example Massimiliano !

            It is very good example how bad the resources can be
            used, and how bad is
            to have flat fee for all members ! That's why RIPE
            fee _MUST_ include per
            resource component.

            I am currious about technical aspects in the logic,
            Even if you go
            with EUI-64 standart for your network infrastructure
            (nobody do this,
            because the addresses unprediction) a /29 IPV6 will
            let you have 34 358
            689 800 ( > 34 Bilions segments). With the maximum
            ttl value of 255
            (limited by the one byte in the header, current
            around the internet is
            used just 64), You can have 134 739 960 (> 134
            millions) router
            interfaces. With the modern switching asics, you
            will need and around
            144 000 000 000 000 (> 144 trillions) ethernet
            switches where you can
            connect up to 18446744073709551616 end hosts per
            segment. Let me also
            remind that IPV6 protocol allow to use a single
            (just one) adress per a
            system/ruter/host (not per interface as IPV4)
            implemented in almost all
            vendors equipment and OS.

            Yes in theory it is posible to need huge address
            space, but in theory
            every one of us (LIRs) have to drawn all ipv6 + ipv4
            + ASN from IANA (not
            from RIPE only) to cover all very unlikely future
            needs.

            -----

            The problems RIPE NCC and we members have, is not
            the charging scheme is
            fair or unfair, the root of the problem is _UNFAIR
            RESROURCES
            DISTRIBUTION_ during the years. As everything in the
            real world internet
            resources are also finite numbers. So how to spread
            finite resources to
            group of members which by presumptions are equal
            (First and most
            important RIPE obligation - threat all members
            equally) ? Logically -
            equal. If we were 5 members maybe we can handshake
            each other and have an
            agreement (not sure ether when we talk about
            concurent companies /
            personals), but we are 21k that's why we need clear,
            transparent and
            strong rules equal to all. We currently have a
            strong discrimination based
            on very vague foundations and rules.

            I will be very happy somebody from RIPE to explain
            us, why one member can
            hold /8 just for fun (or testing or whatever), in
            the same time other
            member to have single /24 (or to be in a waiting
            queues) extreamly
            dificult to operate its bussiness because lack of
            resources and both of
            them to be forced to pay same fee. Which rule in the
            RIPE founding
            agreement exactly says this is fair and equal ? Also
            how many from the
            RIPE NCC staff and you LIRs, with hand on heart will
            tell the current
            situation is moral, normal and fair to all ?

            In all cases after the posible delegated resources
            to RIPE have limits we
            also need limits for the resource each of us can
            hold and operate with.
            thing more fair can be than to take all resources in
            each category
            (IPV4/IPV6/ASN) which are delegated to RIPENCC and
            divide by the LIR
            members number.


            Solution one:
            Redistribute resources equaly to all. Not imposible
            as I already wrote,
            but will that lead to tremors in the work of
            operators - very likely. But
            what is that is equal fees, equal rights, equal
            resources.

            Solution two:
            Start to "penalise" the the LIRs which holds and
            operate resources over
            the fair share limits. That will not make disruption
            of the internet work
            in the region. And will give time to those who want
            to optimise the
            resource usage to do it and save expenses. How to do
            it ? - With money
            ofcourse. To prevent adding too much initial stress
            to all, we have to
            start with small steps and calibrate the
            "penalisation" fee with time.

            As I wrote in my previous mail the current fair
            shair resources for each
            LIR member based on what I checked (by IANA
            documents and 21500 LIRs) are:

            1 x /18 IPV4 block
            1 x /28 IPV6 block
            16 x ASN

            Everything above these numbers should be "penalise"
            with a small fee per
            each resource over the limit. Ofcourse these limits
            must be shifted if
            we become 40k members or down to 10k, but it is an
            easy part. Also
            "penalty" fee by 10 euro per year for /24, /32, ASN
            looks prety resonable
            in the light of current free market prices - 15k
            "buy" / 100 euro month
            rent.

            It is not a category based charging scheme !
            It is fair share charging scheme !
            Can be looked at like extension of the scheme C, but
            guarantee much more
            RIPE NCC sustainable future and covers all LIR
            resources (not only PI).
            Current offered option C is inanity, because one LIR
            can hold /8 PA and
            none PI space, the other can hold single /24 PA and
            10 x /24 PI, and will
            pay much more than the first one with /8 PA (fair ?)
            !


            Another important theme is RIPE-639. 10 Years after
            the adoption we still
            have nearly 34% undiscovered resources. How much
            more time it needs ? If
            for 10 years you cant find legacy holders what will
            be the chance to do
            it in the next 10 or 100 years ? We need a straight
            deadline to point
            2.6. I think RIPE NCC can safely suspend (not
            delete) all records for
            these 34% resources. It is good to put dummy records
            to point to call or
            email to RIPE support staff, and these resource to
            be gobaly announce. If
            nobody call in few (3) mounths, can be consider free
            and can be drawn into
            the pool.



            Ivaylo Josifov
            VarnaIX / Varteh LTD
            +359 52 969393
            Varna, Bulgaria


            On Fri, 26 Apr 2024, Massimiliano Stucchi wrote:

            >
            > Hi,
            >
            > On 26.04.2024 16:40, Thibaud Perret wrote:
            >
            >> I have a question for Massimiliano, if he sees
            it:
            >> Do you really need that many IPv6 addresses?
            Couldn't you just go with a
            >> single
            >> /40 allocation instead? That would still make a
            couple of /48 to be
            >> announced
            >> separately for you to keep your "lab allocation".
            If the answer is "yes"
            to
            >> that
            >> question, you could then pay well less in most if
            not all other RIR
            >> regions.
            >
            > I could do with a much smaller allocation. At
            present, I'm announcing both
            > /29s, with the first one being where my
            infrastructure is (and an address
            I'm
            > writing this e-mail from), and the second /29 has
            been used for some
            research
            > such as the one you can find here
>(https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flabs.ri
            p
            e.net%2Fauthor%2Fstucchimax%2Fa-bgp-side-effect-of-rpki%2F&data=05%7C02%7C
            %7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0
            %7C0%7C638497527736209710%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQ
            IjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=y2T5QV8Ea
            7AuXD4WBPSVxPxiuOcA80pYk7PGy8LHnyQ%3D&reserved=0).
            >
            > The point of the article was to compare what a
            "normal" LIR would pay in
            the
            > different RIRs. If I were to compare having a /48
            (which would be PI at
            that
            > point) I would be comparing two different things.
            > Additionally, I wanted to showcase how some
            decision could be hindering
            > Internet development, such as the one from LACNIC
            to charge so much for
            IPv6
            > compared to all the other RIRs, and the similar
            situation at APNIC,
            although
            > to a lesser extent.
            >
            > To wrap this, could I do with a smaller
            allocation? Definitely. But I
            > received a /29 as part of my membership and I can
            make some use of it. I
            > could also live without a second /29, but that
            does not increase my
            > membership fees. I would return it if the charging
            scheme were to be like
            > APNIC or LACNIC.
            >
            > Ciao!
            >
            > --
            > Massimiliano Stucchi
            > MS16801-RIPE
>https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstucchi.
            c
            h%2F&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc
            923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736218822%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJW
            IjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7
            C%7C&sdata=CCE0El%2F5B41Uiky2BkscGB%2Fb%2FnkIWS2tKh4KGwPNA%2F4%3D&reserved
            =0
            >

            _______________________________________________
            members-discuss mailing list
            members-discuss@ripe.net
https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.rip

            e.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fmembers-discuss&data=05%7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a
            24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b55b3%7C0%7C0%7C6384975
            27736224712%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC
            JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AKpL%2FBU%2BGivvG9mSvj2
            oFyeYeLXVit3cGEBi0iHep9Y%3D&reserved=0
Unsubscribe:https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F
            %2Flists.rip
            e.net%2Fmailman%2Foptions%2Fmembers-discuss%2Fkajtzu%2540basen.net&data=05
            %7C02%7C%7C0b84b59374a24b82c60308dc661e588c%7Cd0b71c570f9b4acc923b81d0b26b
            55b3%7C0%7C0%7C638497527736228202%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAw
            MDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C4000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=w
            Gy%2BZKcmJxuRIwj9%2BTXb5a6zDlImgJ%2BgmCg51B4zlw8%3D&reserved=0



      _______________________________________________
      members-discuss mailing list
      members-discuss@ripe.net
      https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
      Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40medias
      at.ro

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss@ripe.net
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/doru.serdin%40mediasat.ro