Dear Hal, Daniel, all, We have reported to the community on this trend in the Address Policy Working Group at all RIPE Meetings since RIPE 69 in November 2014. So we are glad to see the membership discussing the issue. And yes, we are following the discussion. To answer your question on wait times for mergers, I can confirm that there is no mandated wait time before a merger can take place. Regards, Kind regards, Laura Cobley Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC On 12/02/16 14:49, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
I would be glad to hear someone from the NCC answer to that. I was a bit surprised to find the amount of frustration from the staff, on an issue I was not much aware about. I think that if NCC staff finds this kind of issue a big problem they should let the comunity know.
Do they read this mailing list btw?
Cheers, Daniel
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Hal Ponton wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread (it's Friday), but is there not a policy stating a mandatory wait time before a new LIR can be merged into another?
If NCC staff can see that 1 LIR is opening new LIR's (even with another new legal entity behind it), this can be then sent to a review board to either allow or deny the merge. NCC staff will have the most experience with this, if they can see someone blatantly breaking the policy they should be able to at least push the applications to an entity to stop this behavior. -- -- Regards,
Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer
Buzcom / FibreWiFi
Daniel Stolpe 12 February 2016 at 13:27
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
+1
Of course whenever you have rules, someone will be trying to get around them. Stopping "single legal entities" to open additional LIR:s will not make it impossible to still get several /22:s but at least we will not encourage such behaviour. At the time for RIPE 71 I was told that NCC staff were very frustrated because they could see this kind of applications and there were not much they could do about it.
Apparently there are/were cases when entities - or natural persons - were opening *lots* of LIR:s in order to merge them as soon as they received the /22 IPv4.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- 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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".
From here, you can add or remove addresses. Sascha Luck [ml] 11 February 2016 at 16:34 On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good...
rgds, SAscha Luck
---- 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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".
From here, you can add or remove addresses. Gert Doering 11 February 2016 at 16:25 Hi,
Right.
(And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked).
For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes.
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
Gert Doering -- no hats ---- 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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. h.lu@anytimechinese.com 11 February 2016 at 16:15 Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
? 2016?2?11????5:09?Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com> ???
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote: just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote: Additionally ? On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: * Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- 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/
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/
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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Tim Armstrong 11 February 2016 at 16:09 That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented the v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
---- 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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- 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/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.