Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders
I guess there is no limit to how far people will go to game the system. Since there are about 14,000 LIRs out there that have very little clue about RIPE history and can get the wrong impression about legacy IP address holders, I'd like to speak as a Legacy LIR and one who has paid RIPE membership fees since 1995 (actually the first paying member - see attached): Looking back at the minutes of the meetings from 1994+1995: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1994/minutes-from-ripe... https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1995 one can see organizations like Aconet (Austria), Cesnet (Czech Republic), DFN (Germany), Heanet (Ireland), and over 20 more NRENs - all of which have primarily legacy IP address space, were the founders of RIPE and have paid and will continue to pay RIPE membership fees. Having Legacy IP address space does not mean you are automatically a scum-bag. Quite the opposite and Nigel's email just made be pissed off. Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it. Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC
Dear Colleagues,
The Executive Board has instructed the RIPE NCC to temporarily restrict the ability of Legacy Internet Resource Holders to become RIPE NCC members or open LIR accounts in their capacity as Legacy Internet Resource Holders. This decision was taken at last week's Executive Board meeting in Amsterdam.
Since the policy “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resources” was implemented in 2014, the RIPE NCC has waived the EUR 2,000 sign-up fee for Legacy Internet Resource Holders who choose to enter into a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. It now seems that some entities have started obtaining very small blocks of legacy IPv4 resources (in some cases as little as a /29) and using this to open an LIR account and obtain an IPv4 /22 allocation without having to pay the sign-up fee.
The board feels that this is against the spirit in which this fee was waived and gives an unfair advantage to these entities. Removing this cost barrier could also result in faster depletion of the IPv4 pool that the RIPE community has reserved for newcomers. We will therefore be adding this to the agenda of the upcoming General Meeting (GM) that will take place on 26 October. We will also put forward a resolution for the membership to vote on to address this problem. As the board anticipates an increase in these kinds of requests ahead of the GM, we felt it was necessary to apply this temporary restriction until a proper solution can be applied.
It is important to note that despite this temporary restriction, Legacy Internet Resource Holders may continue to register their resources: - By becoming a RIPE NCC member (without using their capacity as Legacy Internet Resource Holders to receive the sign-up fee waiver) - Under an existing LIR account - Through a sponsoring LIR - By entering into a direct agreement with the RIPE NCC
Greetings, On Wed, 14 Sep 2016, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I guess there is no limit to how far people will go to game the system.
No doubt!
Since there are about 14,000 LIRs out there that have very little clue about RIPE history and can get the wrong impression about legacy IP address holders, I'd like to speak as a Legacy LIR and one who has paid
I prefer the term "pioneer" :-) Altough, afaik, today all LIRs are equal.
RIPE membership fees since 1995 (actually the first paying member - see attached):
Looking back at the minutes of the meetings from 1994+1995: https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1994/minutes-from-ripe... https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/1995 one can see organizations like Aconet (Austria), Cesnet (Czech Republic), DFN (Germany), Heanet (Ireland), and over 20 more NRENs - all of which have primarily legacy IP address space, were the founders of RIPE and have paid and will continue to pay RIPE membership fees. Having Legacy IP address space does not mean you are automatically a scum-bag. Quite the opposite and Nigel's email just made be pissed off.
I was mainly surprised! For me, the main idea (work started around 2012...) about building a way for the RIPE NCC to provide services to Legacy space was to open a door to allow Legacy space owners (LRHs) to manage their assets with the same quality others manage space distributed by the NCC -- being that simply doing nothing (as long as you don't need anything) is also a choice for any LRH... During the proposal "tunning", i voiced the concern about "rewriting history" (i.e. legacy space should always be legacy space). But in the proposal's evolution and further versions, allowing for the space to be "converted" (into RIPE assigned space) was a needed trade-off to advance.
Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE
...and the proposal that enabled services to legacy space/LRHs, i guess. I'm also puzzled by the amount of small bits: Did i miss something? Now you get global routing with something smaller than a /24?!?!?!? But a /22 catched from the NCC is globally routable, so any /29 looks like a simple (and multiple) discardable accessory...
and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision
I would like to second this!
and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it.
Anything interesting in mind? :-) Best Regards, Carlos Friaças FCCN, pt.rccn
Regards, Hank Nussbacher IUCC
Dear Colleagues,
The Executive Board has instructed the RIPE NCC to temporarily restrict the ability of Legacy Internet Resource Holders to become RIPE NCC members or open LIR accounts in their capacity as Legacy Internet Resource Holders. This decision was taken at last week's Executive Board meeting in Amsterdam.
Since the policy ?RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resources? was implemented in 2014, the RIPE NCC has waived the EUR 2,000 sign-up fee for Legacy Internet Resource Holders who choose to enter into a contractual relationship with the RIPE NCC. It now seems that some entities have started obtaining very small blocks of legacy IPv4 resources (in some cases as little as a /29) and using this to open an LIR account and obtain an IPv4 /22 allocation without having to pay the sign-up fee.
The board feels that this is against the spirit in which this fee was waived and gives an unfair advantage to these entities. Removing this cost barrier could also result in faster depletion of the IPv4 pool that the RIPE community has reserved for newcomers. We will therefore be adding this to the agenda of the upcoming General Meeting (GM) that will take place on 26 October. We will also put forward a resolution for the membership to vote on to address this problem. As the board anticipates an increase in these kinds of requests ahead of the GM, we felt it was necessary to apply this temporary restriction until a proper solution can be applied.
It is important to note that despite this temporary restriction, Legacy Internet Resource Holders may continue to register their resources: - By becoming a RIPE NCC member (without using their capacity as Legacy Internet Resource Holders to receive the sign-up fee waiver) - Under an existing LIR account - Through a sponsoring LIR - By entering into a direct agreement with the RIPE NCC
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it.
Could someone remind us why in the first place: - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be transferred) - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain tagged as legacy - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy block) - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
So you own a piece of land and want to sell a small part of that land to someone, so you agree on a price, sign a contract, pay VAT on the transaction, and now the land sold more belongs to the buyer. Contract law 101. Now let's apply your logic: so you own a piece of land and want to sell a small piece of that land to someone, so you agree on a price, sign a contract, pay VAT on the transaction, and now the land belongs to someone else who the buyer now leases it of for a fee. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would make sense to a lawyer. -Tim On 26 Sep 2016 10:48 p.m., "Radu-Adrian Feurdean" < ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it.
Could someone remind us why in the first place: - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be transferred) - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain tagged as legacy - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy block) - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations
I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment.
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
---- 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.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, at 23:20, Tim Armstrong wrote:
So you own a piece of land and want to sell a small part of that land to someone, so you agree on a price, sign a contract, pay VAT on the transaction, and now the land sold more belongs to the buyer. Contract law 101.
Now let's apply your logic: so you own a piece of land and want to sell a small piece of that land to someone, so you agree on a price, sign a contract, pay VAT on the transaction, and now the land belongs to someone else who the buyer now leases it of for a fee.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that would make sense to a lawyer.
Depending on where in the world you live, things may not be that way: Especially, you don't juste sell the land (all of it or part, doesn't matter) for the simple fact that you were sitting there for quite some time. Supposing that the ownership part is fixed, you can only sell it to someone that can be identified (usually meaning it is registered somewhere). Legally, there is no property transfer if it isn't registerend in the "land register" (or whatever it's called), which usually can't happen unless some of the previous criteria (and some other are fulfilled). Ah, and you don't pay the VAT for land transfers (but you must pay other fees). But that all comes to "Is it really, really, really property ? Everywhere ?"
On 2 Oct 2016, at 00:39, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
Depending on where in the world you live, things may not be that way: Especially, you don't juste sell the land (all of it or part, doesn't matter) for the simple fact that you were sitting there for quite some time.
Let me correct that, in most of the world, that’s exactly how it works. If you can prove that you occupied some space for X years, it becomes yours. There is a limited time someone can complain before the piece of land / house / whatever becomes yours (I lost a family property that way).
Hi Radu,
Could someone remind us why in the first place: - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be transferred)
Why shouldn't it ? The database allows assigning space to a third party .. but it also allows Allocating space to a third party. Allocating being the more permanent version ... in RIPE PA terms, a transfer.
- after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain tagged as legacy
True
- what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy block)
This is a legal issue. As RIPE doesn't own Legacy space, it can't enforce this by policy .. as Legacy doesn't fall under policy. Legacy is an ASSET of the legal holder. And with RIPE PA space, the user of the IP space only holds the right of use, while they have a good standing with the RIPE NCC ( pay their fees for the LIR membership ) If you stop paying your ripe membership fees, you lose your rights that are connected to that LIR ( including the Right of use of the IP space) Not with Legacy .. as RIPE isn't able to 'reclaim' an asset that isn't theirs ... In that regard, I truely don't understand why the RIPE NCC asks legacy space holders if they want to convert their legacy space to RIPE PA space ... which has a huge impact for the rights of the legacy space holders...
- more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations
That has to do with the historic rights that were given with the IP space, before the RIPE NCC was established.. It isn't that legacy holders are given full rights, they already had the rights before RIPE NCC was established.
I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment.
Yes, they can. And the RIPE NCC is right not to try to step into that pitfall as they are not a party between the legal holder and the new legal holder. Just because the RIPE NCC is in the same business of leasing out IP space to others, doesn't mean that they can meddle with other parties in the same region that have a similar status as the RIPE NCC ( legacy holders being able to Allocate space to other parties) .. even if they are not called a RIR ... And on a last note on the point of the board in regards of stopping the free lir sign-up for legacy holders ... I think this should be stopped directly. <period> We don't have to sponsor legacy space holders in order to become a LIR.. if they can't cough up a setup fee after being able to use the space for free since 1994, they will never be able to pay the membership fees.. and I'm not buying that sobbing story .. It will also stop the agreements for small /29 or /28 legacy prefixes just to get a free /22.. Regards, Erik Bais
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
---- 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.
Hi, On Mon, 26 Sep 2016, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote: (...)
If you stop paying your ripe membership fees, you lose your rights that are connected to that LIR ( including the Right of use of the IP space) Not with Legacy .. as RIPE isn't able to 'reclaim' an asset that isn't theirs ...
In that regard, I truely don't understand why the RIPE NCC asks legacy space holders if they want to convert their legacy space to RIPE PA space ... which has a huge impact for the rights of the legacy space holders...
Precisely!!! In practice it means the holder can lose its own asset(s) in the future. As i read it, this was kind of a compromise to normalize/enable service from the RIPE NCC to legacy resource holders. I was against it (being one of the 2012-07 co-authors...), but my concerns didn't get enough traction. (...)
I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment.
Yes, they can. And the RIPE NCC is right not to try to step into that pitfall as they are not a party between the legal holder and the new legal holder. Just because the RIPE NCC is in the same business of leasing out IP space to others, doesn't mean that they can meddle with other parties in the same region that have a similar status as the RIPE NCC ( legacy holders being able to Allocate space to other parties) .. even if they are not called a RIR ...
Exactly. But luckly, afaik, most LRHs are not actively pursueing that kind of business....... :-)
And on a last note on the point of the board in regards of stopping the free lir sign-up for legacy holders ... I think this should be stopped directly. <period>
Yup. +1 (i think i already voiced a +1 on this before) Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
We don't have to sponsor legacy space holders in order to become a LIR.. if they can't cough up a setup fee after being able to use the space for free since 1994, they will never be able to pay the membership fees.. and I'm not buying that sobbing story .. It will also stop the agreements for small /29 or /28 legacy prefixes just to get a free /22..
Regards, Erik Bais
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
---- 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.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016, at 23:30, Erik Bais - A2B Internet wrote:
Hi Radu,
Could someone remind us why in the first place: - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be transferred)
Why shouldn't it ? The database allows assigning space to a third party .. but it also allows Allocating space to a third party. Allocating being the more permanent version ... in RIPE PA terms, a transfer.
Of memory you can't do that with an "ASSIGNED PI".
- after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain tagged as legacy
True
The question was more like "but why?"
This is a legal issue. As RIPE doesn't own Legacy space, it can't enforce this by policy .. as Legacy doesn't fall under policy. Legacy is an ASSET of the legal holder. And with RIPE PA space, the user of the IP space only holds the right of use, while they have a good standing with the RIPE NCC ( pay their fees for the LIR membership )
Got the point, but I still have some issues with some of the pre-requis that makes it valid. Like the "ownership" of numbers. More exactly the reason that makes the numbers "owned".
In that regard, I truely don't understand why the RIPE NCC asks legacy space holders if they want to convert their legacy space to RIPE PA space
In order to make things uniform ?
That has to do with the historic rights that were given with the IP space, before the RIPE NCC was established.. It isn't that legacy holders are given full rights, they already had the rights before RIPE NCC was established.
I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment.
Yes, they can. And the RIPE NCC is right not to try to step into that pitfall as they are not a party between the legal holder and the new legal holder.
Please see my previous post about the land registry. At some point, the registry has a role to play in all this.
Just because the RIPE NCC is in the same business of leasing out IP space to others, doesn't mean that they can meddle with other parties in the same region that have a similar status as the RIPE NCC ( legacy holders being able to Allocate space to other parties) .. even if they are not called a RIR ...
Then they kindly fix that with whoever "gave" them the IP address space (IANA ???) and operate their own registry(es).
We don't have to sponsor legacy space holders in order to become a LIR..
That would only be the first step :) -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On 26/09/2016 23:47, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >> Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues >> and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally >> against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's >> decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that >> have done it. > Could someone remind us why in the first place: > - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be > transferred) > - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain > tagged as legacy > - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a > prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy > block) > - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy > holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations > > I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space > "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others > can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment. I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status. -Hank >
Hi On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote: > On 26/09/2016 23:47, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues > >> and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally > >> against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's > >> decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that > >> have done it. > > Could someone remind us why in the first place: > > - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be > > transferred) > > - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain > > tagged as legacy > > - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a > > prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy > > block) > > - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy > > holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations > > > > I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space > > "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others > > can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment. > I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy > IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status. > > How technically possible to "loss" its legacy status if it's status was not given by RIPE. It is not an treatment by RIPE NCC, so they don't have to pretend to have it, they have it, period. Unless an newly established contract relation that specifically state that they give up such status voluntarily, in which is what we are discussing here now. But for my personal view, as long as legacy holder update their whois record(RIPE NCC pay for the database maintenance), I agree with Erik, there is no need to bring them into the LIR system. > -Hank > > > > > ---- > 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. > -- 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.
Hi, Please remove me from this e-mail list roger.baakki@n4.nu <mailto:roger.baakki@n4.nu> > Vidarebefordrat brev: > > Från: Lu Heng <h.lu@outsideheaven.com> > Ämne: Re: [members-discuss] Executive Board Resolution on Legacy Internet Resource Holders > Datum: 27 september 2016 08:58:55 CEST > Till: Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il> > Kopia: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> > > Hi > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:30 AM, Hank Nussbacher <hank@efes.iucc.ac.il <mailto:hank@efes.iucc.ac.il>> wrote: > On 26/09/2016 23:47, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues > >> and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally > >> against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's > >> decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that > >> have done it. > > Could someone remind us why in the first place: > > - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be > > transferred) > > - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain > > tagged as legacy > > - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a > > prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy > > block) > > - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy > > holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations > > > > I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space > > "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others > > can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment. > I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy > IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status. > > How technically possible to "loss" its legacy status if it's status was not given by RIPE. > > It is not an treatment by RIPE NCC, so they don't have to pretend to have it, they have it, period. > > Unless an newly established contract relation that specifically state that they give up such status voluntarily, in which is what we are discussing here now. > > But for my personal view, as long as legacy holder update their whois record(RIPE NCC pay for the database maintenance), I agree with Erik, there is no need to bring them into the LIR system. > > > > -Hank > > > > > ---- > 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/> > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. > > > > -- > 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. > ---- > 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/ <https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/> > > Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Mvh/RegardsRoger Baakki Direkt +46 8 546 144 01Växel +46 8 546 144 00roger.baakki@n4.nu Forskargatan 20J151 36 Södertälje, SwedenBesök: Kvarnbergagatan 14A, B401 pl.3www.n4.nu
Please remove yourself, none of the list-members here is able to do this for you. The footer of the emails should give you a hint: ---- 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. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Lead Mobile Engineer Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 Office : +31 36 7606656 GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99
Hi, On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Lu Heng wrote: (...)
> I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space > "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others > can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment. I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status.
How technically possible to "loss" its legacy status if it's status was not given by RIPE.
It is not an treatment by RIPE NCC, so they don't have to pretend to have it, they have it, period.
Unless an newly established contract relation that specifically state that they give up such status voluntarily, in which is what we are discussing here now.
I suspect that is the case, under a services agreement... ;-)
But for my personal view, as long as legacy holder update their whois record(RIPE NCC pay for the database maintenance), I agree with Erik, there is no need to bring them into the LIR system.
Absolute need, yes, i can agree there isn't an absolute need to bring every LRH to the LIR system. But it would be nice, if this could be achieved, and there are services provided by the NCC (like certification...) that, imho, are a very interesting "plus" for LRHs. Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
-Hank >
---- 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.
-- 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.
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status.
Why? And how? How could e.g. a RIPE or other RIR policy be used to implement this when by admission of all, RIR policies do not apply to legacy space? Nick
On Tue Sep 27, 2016 at 12:23:07pm +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status.
Why? And how? How could e.g. a RIPE or other RIR policy be used to implement this when by admission of all, RIR policies do not apply to legacy space?
They can't - but they can refuse to provide the "free" RIR services to anyone other than either the original legacy allocation holder, or the current holder of the entire original legacy allocation. If you buy or lease a portion of the legacy address space, then as far as the RIRs are concerned, you should not be given any special treatment. Simon
Simon Lockhart wrote:
They can't - but they can refuse to provide the "free" RIR services to anyone other than either the original legacy allocation holder, or the current holder of the entire original legacy allocation. If you buy or lease a portion of the legacy address space, then as far as the RIRs are concerned, you should not be given any special treatment.
different issue. That's a decision about whether the RIPE NCC provides registry services to legacy space holders, and has no bearing on whether legacy address space should fall under RIR (e.g. RIPE) addressing policy. Nick
Let's think of that for arguments sake. According to IANA 92 /8's are listed as Legacy. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml Now this is obviously at the /8 level, agreements have been made for various small subsets of this, but at the end of the day. Do you really think it would be that hard for the legacy address holders to simply decide to create their own market place, and ARIN/RIPE equivalent that falls under less strict rules? For any of these companies, it could be a trivial under taking to allow them to reap the rewards of splitting and selling their legacy space. No contract exists, that says any of the RIR's hold legal ownership or control over most legacy space, so what truly prevents them from getting together and not even worrying about RIPE or the rest of the RIR's... basically nothing but their own time and effort. On 09/27/2016 06:37 AM, Simon Lockhart wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status. Why? And how? How could e.g. a RIPE or other RIR policy be used to implement this when by admission of all, RIR policies do not apply to legacy space? They can't - but they can refuse to provide the "free" RIR services to anyone other than either the original legacy allocation holder, or the current holder of the entire original legacy allocation. If you buy or lease a portion of
On Tue Sep 27, 2016 at 12:23:07pm +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote: the legacy address space, then as far as the RIRs are concerned, you should not be given any special treatment.
Simon
---- 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.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 13:37, Simon Lockhart wrote:
They can't - but they can refuse to provide the "free" RIR services to anyone other than either the original legacy allocation holder, or the current holder of the entire original legacy allocation. If you buy or lease a portion of the legacy address space, then as far as the RIRs are concerned, you should not be given any special treatment.
Thanks, That was the point I also wanted to get to. A legacy block stays legacy as long as it stays in one piece (the one initially given by IANA). Keep it that way or convert it to PA(/PI???). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Hi again, On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 13:37, Simon Lockhart wrote:
They can't - but they can refuse to provide the "free" RIR services to anyone
I don't think RIR services to Legacy owners/space are really "free". At least it isn't "zero cost", last time i checked. :-))
other than either the original legacy allocation holder, or the current holder of the entire original legacy allocation. If you buy or lease a portion of the legacy address space, then as far as the RIRs are concerned, you should not be given any special treatment.
Thanks,
That was the point I also wanted to get to. A legacy block stays legacy as long as it stays in one piece (the one initially given by IANA).
You mean, if a LRH sells 50% of their space, the 50% they keep also automagically becomes PA/PI? (and "falls" under RIR jurisdiction...?). It sounds really awkard to me... :-)
Keep it that way or convert it to PA(/PI???).
Who has the authority to enforce that? The RIR...? (as far as i can remember, under current policy, the holder/owner, in order to receive NCC services always has the choice to "convert" _or_ keep the legacy status). Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
---- 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.
On 27/09/2016 14:23, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status. Why? And how? How could e.g. a RIPE or other RIR policy be used to implement this when by admission of all, RIR policies do not apply to legacy space?
Nick
Legacy IP space loses its "status: legacy" if the owner of the address space sells it. If RIR policies don't currently hold for legacy IP space, once sold, that magic status disappears and RIR policies start taking affect. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. :-) -Hank
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Legacy IP space loses its "status: legacy" if the owner of the address space sells it. If RIR policies don't currently hold for legacy IP space, once sold, that magic status disappears and RIR policies start taking affect. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. :-)
Right, so what you're saying is that the RIPE NCC should have the authority to strip legacy address blocks of their legacy status, even if the legacy holders object to this. They probably won't do this without a policy proposal. So the next step here would be for you to get consensus on a new policy proposal in APWG defining the terms where RIPE policies should apply to legacy address blocks, and in what circumstances the RIPE NCC can forcibly override the rights of legacy space holders. When you get this through APWG, then you'll need to convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it. Please let me know if you intend to do this because if you do, I'd like to invest in popcorn stocks. Nick
Hello,
They probably won't do this without a policy proposal.
Sounds like a very rational thinking :-)
So the next step here would be for you to get consensus on a new policy proposal in APWG defining the terms where RIPE policies should apply to legacy address blocks, and in what circumstances the RIPE NCC can forcibly override the rights of legacy space holders. When you get this through APWG, then you'll need to convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it.
As we are at it, please make sure the policy includes how it can be legally enforced. The policy should include a section covering legal risks as … I would hate to see: - a RIPE NCC member suing the organisation as the IP space he has is used else and can not be used - a legacy IP space holder suing the RIPE NCC for have sold their ‘property’ Good luck ! Sincerely. Thomas
On 27/09/2016 16:10, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Legacy IP space loses its "status: legacy" if the owner of the address space sells it. If RIR policies don't currently hold for legacy IP space, once sold, that magic status disappears and RIR policies start taking affect. Why? Because it is the right thing to do. :-) Right, so what you're saying is that the RIPE NCC should have the authority to strip legacy address blocks of their legacy status, even if
Hank Nussbacher wrote: the legacy holders object to this.
If the legacy holder is no longer the owner then the answer is yes.
They probably won't do this without a policy proposal. So the next step here would be for you to get consensus on a new policy proposal in APWG defining the terms where RIPE policies should apply to legacy address blocks, and in what circumstances the RIPE NCC can forcibly override the rights of legacy space holders. When you get this through APWG, then you'll need to convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it.
Please let me know if you intend to do this because if you do, I'd like to invest in popcorn stocks.
I have no intention of pursuing this. I have so many other more important windmills to tilt at. I am merely stating my opinion as to what should happen once a legacy holder sells their IP space. -Hank
Nick
On 27/09/16 14:10, Nick Hilliard wrote:
They probably won't do this without a policy proposal. So the next step here would be for you to get consensus on a new policy proposal in APWG defining the terms where RIPE policies should apply to legacy address blocks, and in what circumstances the RIPE NCC can forcibly override the rights of legacy space holders. When you get this through APWG, then you'll need to convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it.
Well, most of the time you don't have to "convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it". The only time that the board would refuse to implement policy (and this has never happened to my knowledge) would be if such a policy were to impact the commercial viability of the NCC, and then we have a fiduciary duty to not allow it. Otherwise... go ahead. Nigel
Nigel Titley wrote:
Well, most of the time you don't have to "convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it". The only time that the board would refuse to implement policy (and this has never happened to my knowledge)
<ahem> ASN fees.
would be if such a policy were to impact the commercial viability of the NCC, and then we have a fiduciary duty to not allow it. Otherwise... go ahead.
I'd suggest that a landgrab like this would attract law suits. Nick
Hi Nick, As part of the PDP as most of us know, there is a legal review in the Impact Analyses. And any illegal land grab would not pass either Remco's eye or Athena her review is my experience :-) Any attempt to reclaim something that isn't yours, (with concensus on a policy or not) is called theft, if I recall correctly ... More than enough lawyers will be more than happy to defend the owners legitimate rights and claims .. Regards, Erik Bais
Op 27 sep. 2016 om 18:17 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick@netability.ie> het volgende geschreven:
Nigel Titley wrote:
Well, most of the time you don't have to "convince the RIPE NCC board to implement it". The only time that the board would refuse to implement policy (and this has never happened to my knowledge)
<ahem> ASN fees.
would be if such a policy were to impact the commercial viability of the NCC, and then we have a fiduciary duty to not allow it. Otherwise... go ahead.
I'd suggest that a landgrab like this would attract law suits.
Nick
---- 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.
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Hank Nussbacher wrote: (...)
I can understand that a legacy space holder can keep the space "received" before the existence of the NCC, but not the fact that others can acquire that kind of space and pretend to the same treatment.
I agree with you. If a legacy owner sells all or part of their legacy IP space, that IP space should lose its legacy status.
I really don't agree with that. What if there is a donation (some LRHs are non-profit) or the legacy resource holder's org is split in two? The asset is still the same, even if it's split in two. The RIR still has no rights over it. The legacy "feature", imho, is attached to address space, not its "owners"... :-) Regards, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
-Hank
---- 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.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 14:08, Carlos Friacas wrote:
The legacy "feature", imho, is attached to address space, not its "owners"... :-)
IMHO, it is related to the block as "given" initially from the IANA. Btw, are there signed contracts certifying that IANA gave ownership to the initial holders, with the possibility to to whatever they want with them, forever ? Is there some copyright or patent on those legacy blocks or address space (I know it sounds stupid) ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On 27 Sep 2016, at 16:13, Radu-Adrian Feurdean <ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 14:08, Carlos Friacas wrote:
The legacy "feature", imho, is attached to address space, not its "owners"... :-)
IMHO, it is related to the block as "given" initially from the IANA.
Btw, are there signed contracts certifying that IANA gave ownership to the initial holders, with the possibility to to whatever they want with them, forever ? Is there some copyright or patent on those legacy blocks or address space (I know it sounds stupid) ?
Why does this matter? Suppose you could 'prove' those parties are not 'legally' entitled to that space and suppose would claim it back. Then what, start handing out that space and have two parties advertising the space? And suppose you could solve that, then what? We buy ourselves how long? How many /8's do you think you could reclaim? How long do you think a RIR like RIPE NCC would be able to survive on a additional /8? I'm a relative newbie in the industry compared to some of us, I started in 1997 (@Demon NL) and in those days we already said "we need to move to IPv6 soon". It's now almost 2017, twenty years later. All what I'm hearing here is 'how can we postpone the inevitable". It's useless, it's inevitable, get over it. Migrate to IPv6, ditch IPv4. Forget about the legacy, it's not going to solve your problem. It's only going to postpone them a (very) short while. -- Met vriendelijke groet, Arjan van der Oest Lead Mobile Engineer Voiceworks BV - Oplagestraat 1 - 1321 NK Almere Mobile : +31 6 8686 0000 Office : +31 36 7606656 GPG key on http://keyserver.pgp.com/ Key fingerprint = C58F 55CA C62A 5A49 15E0 2271 3481 6020 997E EE99
Hi Radu, All, On Tue, 27 Sep 2016, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 14:08, Carlos Friacas wrote:
The legacy "feature", imho, is attached to address space, not its "owners"... :-)
IMHO, it is related to the block as "given" initially from the IANA.
Btw, are there signed contracts certifying that IANA gave ownership to the initial holders, with the possibility to to whatever they want with them, forever ?
Afaik, no.
Is there some copyright or patent on those legacy blocks or address space (I know it sounds stupid) ?
Maybe a 3rd option... "ownership"? :-) Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think both the RIR community and the LRHs strongly prefer to sort out all details without running to arbitration, or... courts. Cheers, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 17:27, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Btw, are there signed contracts certifying that IANA gave ownership to the initial holders, with the possibility to to whatever they want with them, forever ?
Afaik, no.
This is the main question to be answered. If the answer is "NO", then I would like to understand why the RIRs cannot do watver they want with the legacy space "managed" by them. If the answer is "YES", then that would be for me a good starting point into accepting the current situation. But on the other side, it seems that not all RIRs have such a "friendly" stance towards LRHs (towards LEGACY in general).
Is there some copyright or patent on those legacy blocks or address space (I know it sounds stupid) ?
Maybe a 3rd option... "ownership"? :-)
It's not becayse you have always been named Carlos that you own the name. In fact you don't. And I doubt anyone owns the number 1 (or 42, or whatever) ot the letter A. Intellectual property only exists because there are laws allowing it to exist and specifying in what circumstances it can exist and what is it's extent.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think both the RIR community and the LRHs strongly prefer to sort out all details without running to arbitration, or... courts.
Usually yes, but sometimes it's only the courts that can definitely decide how things must be.
Hi, On Sun, 2 Oct 2016, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, at 17:27, Carlos Friacas wrote:
Btw, are there signed contracts certifying that IANA gave ownership to the initial holders, with the possibility to to whatever they want with them, forever ?
Afaik, no.
This is the main question to be answered. If the answer is "NO", then I would like to understand why the RIRs cannot do watver they want with the legacy space "managed" by them.
The legacy space ISN'T managed by the RIRs. Space was distributed by IANA simply by e-mail (afaik) to LRHs, BEFORE the RIRs were even created, and then, some years later, after RIRs were established, the RIRs (themselves?) thought it would be a good idea to maintain records on each holders' RIR service region -- and then the ERX project came to light. I'm not sure the holders' were even asked about this, but the alternative would be to keep the records where they were, or create a new (global?) organization in order to keep those records.
If the answer is "YES", then that would be for me a good starting point into accepting the current situation.
I guess an e-mail message, in some parts of the (non-virtual) world might be considered as "good documentation" -- or a contract...?
But on the other side, it seems that not all RIRs have such a "friendly" stance towards LRHs (towards LEGACY in general).
Where did you get that idea? pointers...?
Is there some copyright or patent on those legacy blocks or address space (I know it sounds stupid) ?
Maybe a 3rd option... "ownership"? :-)
It's not becayse you have always been named Carlos that you own the name. In fact you don't.
It's a bit different. "Carlos" is not a unique identifier. Even my four names are not a unique identifier (roughly it is because my surname is really rare...). If an authority distributes space, i guess only that authority might be able to revoke that distribution act...
And I doubt anyone owns the number 1 (or 42, or whatever) ot the letter A.
Look, even who received x.y.z.w/mask from IANA is not the owner of that number in all existing contexts -- it is only the owner in the IP world context. I didn't write "Internet", because several unique blocks were distributed and never got out of a private domain. But, even if a block is only used privately (very useful when you experience mergers...), you can't have a different org using it on the Internet context.
Intellectual property only exists because there are laws allowing it to exist and specifying in what circumstances it can exist and what is it's extent.
Sure. Again, i don't think the IP space distributed by IANA falls under intellectual property...
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think both the RIR community and the LRHs strongly prefer to sort out all details without running to arbitration, or... courts.
Usually yes, but sometimes it's only the courts that can definitely decide how things must be.
A dutch court, a portuguese court and a romanian court might decide differently on the same case... which law should apply? The recipient coutry's law and/or IANA's? Cheers, Carlos Friaças (pt.rccn)
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016, at 00:08, Carlos Friacas wrote:
The legacy space ISN'T managed by the RIRs.
Of course, not managed, "administered" http://www.iana.net/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xhtml#... Or is it still "managed" ? https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/legacy-resources/erx I don't think this changes the situation very much if the legacy ressources cannot be considered property.
If the answer is "YES", then that would be for me a good starting point into accepting the current situation.
I guess an e-mail message, in some parts of the (non-virtual) world might be considered as "good documentation" -- or a contract...?
A contract does not create ownership in itself. As for an e-mail being considered a contract - the outcome may be pretty random. Why exactly wasn't IP space considered as a RTU (right to use) ? It seems that ARIN's position goes in that direction. That would make legacy space quite similar to non-legacy one.
But on the other side, it seems that not all RIRs have such a "friendly" stance towards LRHs (towards LEGACY in general).
Where did you get that idea? pointers...?
https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa_faq.html#legacy https://www.arin.net/resources/agreements/rsa.pdf http://www.mail-archive.com/nanog@nanog.org/msg87789.html
It's a bit different. "Carlos" is not a unique identifier. Even my four names are not a unique identifier (roughly it is because my surname is really rare...).
Neither is 8.8.8.8 (just an example of legacy IP address).
Sure. Again, i don't think the IP space distributed by IANA falls under intellectual property...
Intangibe, definitely yes.
A dutch court, a portuguese court and a romanian court might decide differently on the same case... which law should apply? The recipient coutry's law and/or IANA's?
Most likely any jurisdiction that could enforce its decision on RIPE NCC. That should normally include at least the Dutch one. Probably a few select others to some degree (or not). Back to where we started, why such a friendly stance towards all holders of "space initally distributed before the RIR system", espcially the non-collaborative ones ? Choice (if yes, why) ? Well-defined legal obligation (doesn't look like this, at least in IANA's own legal system). Fear of litigation ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Radu-Adrian Feurdean <ripe-ncc@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> writes:
Why exactly wasn't IP space considered as a RTU (right to use) ? It seems that ARIN's position goes in that direction. That would make legacy space quite similar to non-legacy one.
Here is a fairly authoritative explanation, at least for the Network Solutions period (pre-ARIN) in the Americas: http://www.internetgovernance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/NSF_GC_Letter... 1. The NSF general counsel seems to think IP addresses are intellectual property, which is a bit weird, but definitely in the context of the Internet those 32-bit numbers are `things of value'. 2. Under the Cooperative Agreement the NSF gave a thing of value to Netsol who then gave it to whomever they gave it to. 3. The NSF never had any agreement with ARIN (or RIPE) so the RIRs have nothing to say about it. These particular deck chairs are bolted down pretty tightly. All the RIRs can do is ask politely and even then the only thing that it will achieve is perhaps a few extra months. The time spent in this long email thread is probably better spent on making sure you've got IPv6 working properly everywhere. -w -- William Waites Network Engineer HUBS AS60241
Hi, On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:47:50PM +0200, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016, at 17:16, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Acquiring small bits of legacy IP space to bypass LIR membership dues and to then be entitled to get more IP address space goes totally against the spirit of RIPE and I totally approve the Executive Board's decision and would recommend even further sanctions against those that have done it.
Could someone remind us why in the first place: - a legacy block can be broken into smaller pieces (which can then be transferred) - after the transfer, the parts of the old legacy block still remain tagged as legacy - what stops the "convert to PA" (or PI, whatever) from being a prerequisite to a transfer (or even to a split of the original legacy block) - more generally why the stance of "giving full rights to legacy holders", but with only voluntary respect of the obligations
What exactly do you not understand about "RIPE and RIPE NCC have no jurisdiction about legacy blocks, and no mandate to regulate them"? 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 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
participants (16)
-
Arjan van der Oest -
Carlos Friacas -
Daniel Pearson -
Erik Bais - A2B Internet -
Gert Doering -
Hank Nussbacher -
Lu Heng -
Michel Luczak (SHRD) -
Nick Hilliard -
Nigel Titley -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
Roger Baakki -
Simon Lockhart -
Thomas Mangin -
Tim Armstrong -
William Waites