Hello, A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account." I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. Thanks for discussing this subject. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network
salut Ping, agree with you, the additional LIR account have to be 50% from the first sign-up Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: http://www.itns.md Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... Thursday, July 21, 2016, 7:08:02 PM, you wrote: Hello, A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account." I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. Thanks for discussing this subject. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network
I also agree something needs to be done. Has stated previously, I can see why Ripe are trying to enforce a /22 with an new LR accounts, However this does not resolve the issue that ripe made this rule in the first place to ensure everyone has a equal share. I really think ripe needs to address the issue and remove the IP Transfer Service and offer it as a case by case bases only for merging LR accounts. Why not have a policy if a LR is no longer meeting the requirements that the IP address space was given then they must be returned. For example, if larger space then say a /22 goes unused for more then 12 months then its assumed its no longer required and then has to be returned back RIPE so can be allocated to other LRs who do need the additional space. What really annoys me and I have said this before, we get quoted $8 per IP Address via the transfer service now on a /22 that would be £6202.71 Some LR’s seem to have very large unused address space which they are trying to make huge profits for. This should NOT be allowed. Return back to RIPE is the best option and is fair to everyone. Then if a LR needs more than a /22 and can show why it’s needed can then be approved. This is why ripe is down to the last /8 due to poor resource management. This needs to be investigated. Regards Dave From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sergiu IANCIUC Sent: 21 July 2016 17:14 To: Ping IP <pingip.network@gmail.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account salut Ping, agree with you, the additional LIR account have to be 50% from the first sign-up Best Regards, - Sergiu IANCIUC SC ITNS.NET SRL MD-2068, Moldova or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1 tel.: +373 22 877 877 fax : +373 22 44 11 73 mobile: +373 690 22 111 url: http://www.itns.md Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to... Thursday, July 21, 2016, 7:08:02 PM, you wrote: Hello, A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account." I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account. I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. Thanks for discussing this subject. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network
Le 21 juil. 2016 à 18:31, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> a écrit :
I also agree something needs to be done. Has stated previously, I can see why Ripe are trying to enforce a /22 with an new LR accounts, However this does not resolve the issue that ripe made this rule in the first place to ensure everyone has a equal share. I really think ripe needs to address the issue and remove the IP Transfer Service and offer it as a case by case bases only for merging LR accounts. Why not have a policy if a LR is no longer meeting the requirements that the IP address space was given then they must be returned. For example, if larger space then say a /22 goes unused for more then 12 months then its assumed its no longer required and then has to be returned back RIPE so can be allocated to other LRs who do need the additional space.
Define « unused » . That’s tricky. No one wants to give back address space, so if a LIR doesn’t want it to give it back, it will be quite difficult to have any idea about the real use of the space.
What really annoys me and I have said this before, we get quoted $8 per IP Address via the transfer service now on a /22 that would be £6202.71
Numbers, cool. 8$ it’s a one-time fee, isn’t it ? So it means you should increase your prices of 0.6$/month/IP, to get your money back in 12 months. It’s quite acceptable IMHO. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr <mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr> tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr <blocked::http://www.ipeva.fr/> - www.ipeva-studio.com <blocked::http://www.ipeva-studio.com/> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur.
At this moment additional LIR accounts with a /22 will not be able to transfer the /22 within 24 months if i am correct and thus not be able to sell them to another LIR. Only if that is the case then i agree with lowering the setup fee by 50%. I agree with David that there should be more control over the IP hoarding issue, but i do not think lowering the setup fee will advantage the hoarding, at least not within 24 months. That combined with IPv6 becoming closer and closer, the question would be: will there be still active use of IPv4 by then? :) Just my thoughts. With kind regards, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 18:39 heeft David Ponzone <david.ponzone@ipeva.fr<mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr>> het volgende geschreven: Le 21 juil. 2016 à 18:31, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> a écrit : I also agree something needs to be done. Has stated previously, I can see why Ripe are trying to enforce a /22 with an new LR accounts, However this does not resolve the issue that ripe made this rule in the first place to ensure everyone has a equal share. I really think ripe needs to address the issue and remove the IP Transfer Service and offer it as a case by case bases only for merging LR accounts. Why not have a policy if a LR is no longer meeting the requirements that the IP address space was given then they must be returned. For example, if larger space then say a /22 goes unused for more then 12 months then its assumed its no longer required and then has to be returned back RIPE so can be allocated to other LRs who do need the additional space. Define « unused » . That’s tricky. No one wants to give back address space, so if a LIR doesn’t want it to give it back, it will be quite difficult to have any idea about the real use of the space. What really annoys me and I have said this before, we get quoted $8 per IP Address via the transfer service now on a /22 that would be £6202.71 Numbers, cool. 8$ it’s a one-time fee, isn’t it ? So it means you should increase your prices of 0.6$/month/IP, to get your money back in 12 months. It’s quite acceptable IMHO. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr<mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr> tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr<blocked::http://www.ipeva.fr/> - www.ipeva-studio.com<blocked::http://www.ipeva-studio.com/> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur. ---- 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.
Personally I fail to even see the point of the requirement of an additional LIR account. It just adds extra overhead and cost. If we are allowed to setup new accounts to get additional /22’s then why not just change the charging structure and charge us additional fees for the /22’s so we can manage in one simple portal against a single LIR. Everyone in need will find a way and these elaborate policies and rules around it aren’t working. This was proved by the turnaround of the additional LIR account policy. Measures put in by RIPE will be circumvented by those who want to or are in need. Remember IP’s are the life blood of our business. No one is going to let a policy get in the way of doing business. Maybe the idea of a documented IPv6 deployment gains the ability to apply for additional IP’s from the remaining block. As a smaller new LIR it really annoys me that small ISPs were issued /16’s in the past that they still haven’t filled to this day or have used very uneconomically. I know of a small business park that was assigned a /24 many years ago that use a /28 out of it. I do really think RIPE should be spending all these extra fees on undoing the mistakes of the past. In reality IPv6 is still a way off 100% penetration and that is the only point IPv4 is of no use any longer. IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. Graham -- [cid:image001.png@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.academia.co.uk/> Graham Stewart Senior Solutions Architect Tel: Mob: Web: 01992 703 809 07715 667 681 www.academia.co.uk<http://www.academia.co.uk/> [cid:image002.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.twitter.com/AcademiaGroup> [cid:image003.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.vimeo.com/academiagroup> [cid:image004.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.youtube.com/academialtd> [cid:image005.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.linkedin.com/company/academialtd> 8 Kinetic Crescent • Innova Park • Enfield • EN3 7XH [cid:image006.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbtechDetails.asp?siteID=3&compID=2923&yr=2014> [cid:image007.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbtechDetails.asp?siteID=3&compID=2923&yr=2013> [cid:image008.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbDetails.asp?siteID=3&compID=2923&yr=2012> [cid:image009.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbtechDetails.asp?siteID=3&compID=2923&yr=2011> [cid:image010.jpg@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.fasttrack.co.uk/fasttrack/leagues/dbtechDetails.asp?siteID=3&compID=2923&yr=2010> [cid:image011.png@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.deloitte.co.uk/fast50/winners/2014-winners/index.cfm> [cid:image012.png@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.deloitte.co.uk/fast50/winners/2013-winners/index.cfm> [cid:image013.png@01D1E37B.3E1919D0]<http://www.deloitte.co.uk/fast50/winners/previous-winners/index.cfm> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 17:59 To: David Ponzone <david.ponzone@ipeva.fr> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account At this moment additional LIR accounts with a /22 will not be able to transfer the /22 within 24 months if i am correct and thus not be able to sell them to another LIR. Only if that is the case then i agree with lowering the setup fee by 50%. I agree with David that there should be more control over the IP hoarding issue, but i do not think lowering the setup fee will advantage the hoarding, at least not within 24 months. That combined with IPv6 becoming closer and closer, the question would be: will there be still active use of IPv4 by then? :) Just my thoughts. With kind regards, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 18:39 heeft David Ponzone <david.ponzone@ipeva.fr<mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr>> het volgende geschreven: Le 21 juil. 2016 à 18:31, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> a écrit : I also agree something needs to be done. Has stated previously, I can see why Ripe are trying to enforce a /22 with an new LR accounts, However this does not resolve the issue that ripe made this rule in the first place to ensure everyone has a equal share. I really think ripe needs to address the issue and remove the IP Transfer Service and offer it as a case by case bases only for merging LR accounts. Why not have a policy if a LR is no longer meeting the requirements that the IP address space was given then they must be returned. For example, if larger space then say a /22 goes unused for more then 12 months then its assumed its no longer required and then has to be returned back RIPE so can be allocated to other LRs who do need the additional space. Define « unused » . That’s tricky. No one wants to give back address space, so if a LIR doesn’t want it to give it back, it will be quite difficult to have any idea about the real use of the space. What really annoys me and I have said this before, we get quoted $8 per IP Address via the transfer service now on a /22 that would be £6202.71 Numbers, cool. 8$ it’s a one-time fee, isn’t it ? So it means you should increase your prices of 0.6$/month/IP, to get your money back in 12 months. It’s quite acceptable IMHO. David Ponzone Direction Technique email: david.ponzone@ipeva.fr<mailto:david.ponzone@ipeva.fr> tel: 01 74 03 18 97 gsm: 06 66 98 76 34 Service Client IPeva tel: 0811 46 26 26 www.ipeva.fr<blocked::http://www.ipeva.fr/> - www.ipeva-studio.com<blocked::http://www.ipeva-studio.com/> Ce message et toutes les pièces jointes sont confidentiels et établis à l'intention exclusive de ses destinataires. Toute utilisation ou diffusion non autorisée est interdite. Tout message électronique est susceptible d'altération. IPeva décline toute responsabilité au titre de ce message s'il a été altéré, déformé ou falsifié. Si vous n'êtes pas destinataire de ce message, merci de le détruire immédiatement et d'avertir l'expéditeur. ---- 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 Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote:
IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period.
What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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
You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: > IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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
Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: > IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:00:29PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote:
Policy changes can be proposed please see this link
https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development...
I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I???d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy.
Please read up the archives of the address policy mailing list to understand what has happened to a number of recent policy proposals, and how *consensus based* policy making works. We do not vote on address policy, so "half the group is opposing it" is the sure death of any proposal (even if 51% are in favour of it). Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- 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
Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Jonathan From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:stefan@softtech.nl> > Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> " <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17 <tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16 <tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63 <tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: <http://www.softtech.nl/> http://www.softtech.nl | Email Support: <mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> sbsupport@softtech.nl Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> > het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net> > wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Erik From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> > on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:stefan@softtech.nl> > Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> " <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17 <tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16 <tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63 <tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: <http://www.softtech.nl/> http://www.softtech.nl | Email Support: <mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> sbsupport@softtech.nl Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> > het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net> > wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Me too Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/> ________________________________ Von: Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> Gesendet: 21.07.2016 20:15 An: jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk; 'Network Operations Centre'; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] R: Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Erik From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I'd be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:stefan@softtech.nl>> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312 2711 DZ Zoetermeer Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I'm sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP's until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Yup. I never subscribed, RIPE decided to do so. RIPE added my email address they can remove it too... Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:22 PM +0200, "Pelz" <pelz@united-hoster.de<mailto:pelz@united-hoster.de>> wrote: Me too Sent from Nine<http://www.9folders.com/> ________________________________ Von: Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> Gesendet: 21.07.2016 20:15 An: jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk; 'Network Operations Centre'; members-discuss@ripe.net Betreff: [members-discuss] R: Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Erik From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I'd be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:stefan@softtech.nl>> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312 2711 DZ Zoetermeer Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I'm sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP's until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
see the bottom of every email you recieve 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. Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, w: cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net/> | e: anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail.
On 21 Jul,2016, at 20:15, Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> wrote:
Dear moderator
Please can you remove me from this distribution group
Regards Erik
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
Policy changes can be proposed please see this link
https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... <https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development-process-pdp/policy-development-3.html>
I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy.
Graham
From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:stefan@softtech.nl>> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
I agree on this one.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Stefan van Westering
SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17 <tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16 <tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63 <tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl <mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl <http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl <mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl>
Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven:
Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below?
This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out.
There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them.
Graham
On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote:
IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period.
What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago?
In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is.
(I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game)
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
---- 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. ---- 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.
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.
The portal is down currently and so we are unable to unsubscribe. Please assist Alexander Way Service Desk Shift Lead [http://portal.softcat.com/theothers/marketing/Proposal%20tools/companysoftcatlogonoplc.jpg]<http://www.softcat.com/> Softcat plc, Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, SL7 1LW T: 01628 403 789 | E: AlexWa@softcat.com<mailto: AlexWa@softcat.com> [cid:image004.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/softcat-ltd?trk=top_nav_home> [cid:image006.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://twitter.com/SoftcatLimited> [cid:image008.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://en-gb.facebook.com/softcatcareers> [cid:image010.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <http://www.softcat.com/> [cid:image012.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://www.softcat.com/ecat/customer-login> Escalation Contact: Megan Leadbetter – Service Desk Team Leader | E: meganle@softcat.com<mailto:meganle@softcat.com> (Please feel free to contact my Team Leader directly with any feedback or escalations) From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Anthony Somerset Sent: 21 July 2016 19:17 To: Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] R: Sign-up fee for additional LIR account see the bottom of every email you recieve 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. Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, [Cloud Unboxed Limited] w: cloudunboxed.net<http://www.cloudunboxed.net> | e: anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net<mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail. On 21 Jul,2016, at 20:15, Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net<mailto:erik@8tto.net>> wrote: Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Erik From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:stefan@softtech.nl>> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
a) Don’t know what these log-in details are b) When I click on the link I get told the site is down for maintenance Meanwhile my inbox is flooded by unwanted emails From: Anthony Somerset [mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net] Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:17 PM To: Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> Cc: jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk; Network Operations Centre <noc@academia.co.uk>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] R: Sign-up fee for additional LIR account see the bottom of every email you recieve 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. Anthony Somerset, Technical Director, <http://cloudunboxed.net/img/email-logo.png> w: <http://www.cloudunboxed.net> cloudunboxed.net | e: <mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net> anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net | t: +44 (0)33 0088 2444 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of malware in attachments to this e-mail. On 21 Jul,2016, at 20:15, Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net <mailto:erik@8tto.net> > wrote: Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Erik From: members-discuss [ <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link <https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development-process-pdp/policy-development-3.html> https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss < <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Stefan van Westering < <mailto:stefan@softtech.nl> stefan@softtech.nl> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: " <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net" < <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Engelandlaan 312 <x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer Telefoon Support: <tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> 079 - 303 01 17 Telefoon Algemeen: <tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> 079 - 593 75 16 Fax: <tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> 079 - 331 93 63 Email: <mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> stefan@softtech.nl Internet: <http://www.softtech.nl/> http://www.softtech.nl | Email Support: <mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> sbsupport@softtech.nl Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell < <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [ <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" < <mailto:gert@space.net> gert@space.net> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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. ---- 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. ---- 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.
a) Your problem b) Wait a few minutes These are not unwanted emails since you subscribed to them. RIPE is not the sort of organisation that harvests email addresses to get user input. If you really care about getting unsubscribed you would realize that there isn't an unsubscribe bot that is looking for your post to unsubscribe you. Also, another Pro-Tip: Email Filters On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:19 PM, <jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk> wrote:
a) Don’t know what these log-in details are
b) When I click on the link I get told the site is down for maintenance
Meanwhile my inbox is flooded by unwanted emails
*From:* Anthony Somerset [mailto:anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net] *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:17 PM *To:* Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> *Cc:* jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk; Network Operations Centre < noc@academia.co.uk>; members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] R: Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
see the bottom of every email you recieve
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.
Anthony Somerset, Technical Director,
[image: Cloud Unboxed Limited]
*w:* cloudunboxed.net <http://www.cloudunboxed.net> | *e: * anthony.somerset@cloudunboxed.net | *t:* +44 (0)33 0088 2444
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
*This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended for the addressed individual or entity only. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and then discard this e-mail. Unauthorized copying, sharing and distributing of this e-mail is prohibited. The content in this e-mail does not necessarily represent the views of the company. The addressee should check all attachments for malware; the company makes no representation as regards the absence of* * malware in attachments to this e-mail.*
On 21 Jul,2016, at 20:15, Erik - 8tto Trading Sa <erik@8tto.net> wrote:
Dear moderator
Please can you remove me from this distribution group
Regards
Erik
*From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Network Operations Centre *Sent:* Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM *To:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
Policy changes can be proposed please see this link
https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development...
I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy.
Graham
*From: *members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl> *Date: *Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 *To: *"members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> *Subject: *Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
I agree on this one.
*Met vriendelijke groet,*
*Stefan van Westering*
*SoftTech Automatisering B.V.*
Engelandlaan 312
2711 DZ Zoetermeer
*Telefoon Support:* 079 - 303 01 17
*Telefoon Algemeen:* 079 - 593 75 16
*Fax:* 079 - 331 93 63
*Email: *stefan@softtech.nl <jeroen@softtech.nl>
*Internet:* http://www.softtech.nl *|* *Email Support:* sbsupport@softtech.nl
Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell < dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> het volgende geschreven:
Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below?
This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them.
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out.
There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them.
Graham
On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote:
IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period.
What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago?
In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is.
(I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game)
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
---- 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.
---- 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.
Supportcat would also like to be removed from this Distribution group Alexander Way Service Desk Shift Lead [http://portal.softcat.com/theothers/marketing/Proposal%20tools/companysoftcatlogonoplc.jpg]<http://www.softcat.com/> Softcat plc, Fieldhouse Lane, Marlow, SL7 1LW T: 01628 403 789 | E: AlexWa@softcat.com<mailto: AlexWa@softcat.com> [cid:image004.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://www.linkedin.com/company/softcat-ltd?trk=top_nav_home> [cid:image006.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://twitter.com/SoftcatLimited> [cid:image008.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://en-gb.facebook.com/softcatcareers> [cid:image010.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <http://www.softcat.com/> [cid:image012.png@01D028F5.B580F390] <https://www.softcat.com/ecat/customer-login> Escalation Contact: Megan Leadbetter – Service Desk Team Leader | E: meganle@softcat.com<mailto:meganle@softcat.com> (Please feel free to contact my Team Leader directly with any feedback or escalations) From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of jonathanlovell@coretel.co.uk Sent: 21 July 2016 19:13 To: 'Network Operations Centre' <noc@academia.co.uk>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Dear moderator Please can you remove me from this distribution group Regards Jonathan From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 7:00 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Policy changes can be proposed please see this link https://www.ripe.net/support/training/learn-online/videos/policy-development... I think for interested parties we should setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. The hard part is convincing the members to vote for it because anyone who would be negatively affected would vote against it and anyone positively affected would vote for it. It would be a good attempt and I’d be happy to co-ordinate and spend some time with other members to propose a change or new policy. Graham From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of Stefan van Westering <stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:stefan@softtech.nl>> Date: Thursday, 21 July 2016 at 18:40 To: "members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>" <members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net>> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account I agree on this one. Met vriendelijke groet, Stefan van Westering SoftTech Automatisering B.V. Engelandlaan 312<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> 2711 DZ Zoetermeer<x-apple-data-detectors://3/1> Telefoon Support: 079 - 303 01 17<tel:079%20-%20303%2001%2017> Telefoon Algemeen: 079 - 593 75 16<tel:079%20-%20593%2075%2016> Fax: 079 - 331 93 63<tel:079%20-%20331%2093%2063> Email: stefan@softtech.nl<mailto:jeroen@softtech.nl> Internet: http://www.softtech.nl<http://www.softtech.nl/> | Email Support:sbsupport@softtech.nl<mailto:sbsupport@softtech.nl> Op 21 jul. 2016 om 19:38 heeft David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> het volgende geschreven: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
It should be considered for the good of the internet and big LIRs who are hoarding should stop and focus on IPv6. RIPE should change policy and force returns. If anyone argues they are unable to provide such data as a network they are simply being dishonest. Without this sort of data how do you mitigate DDoS for example. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:37, "David Benwell" <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> wrote: Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below? This no doubt will upset some of the LR's who do have /19 /20 /16 doing nothing with them. -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Network Operations Centre Sent: 21 July 2016 18:33 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account You have picked one point out of a longer email but I do acknowledge that but to retort a lot of people got MORE than they needed at the time and the two probably balance out. It really comes down to bad controls early on and LIRs being penalised for it now. Some onus should be put on to RIPE to sort out the mess from the past that would go some way to sorting the issue out. There is I’m sure a way using all of the many tools we have available be able to prove to RIPE what ips are being used. Something like Netflow data would show the percentage of IPs in use across an allocation and upon proof of exhaustion at the local level be entitled to more. Additionally then people hording should be made to return their IP’s until they need them. Graham On 21/07/2016, 18:23, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 05:11:03PM +0000, Network Operations Centre wrote: > IMHO the current position is hurting the industry and creating un necessary complexity. The final /8 rule was put in to help new LIRs. As a new small LIR its hindering our growth plans period. What would you say today if we had no "final /8 rule" today, and all IPv4 space would have been used up 5 years ago? In other words: you would not even get a /22 today, if the policy were not as restrictive as it is. (I find it amazing how loud folks complain about "we cannot get enough!" that only are able to get anything at all because all *others* got less than they wanted, earlier in the game) 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 ---- 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.
Greetings, just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips. The millions of additionally money can be divided among all LIRs. Best regards =)$ Jan Schumacher webhoster.de AG
Hello, I have a deja vu... this discussion again! -- *Leopoldo Maestro* *Soltia Consulting S.L*
Love that idea :-) — Sincerely Martin Sundahl Adeodc aps On July 21, 2016 at 13:51:04, webhoster Info (info@webhoster.ag) wrote: Greetings, just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips. The millions of additionally money can be divided among all LIRs. Best regards =)$ Jan Schumacher webhoster.de AG ---- 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 is the only way with ipv4 and I think all here now this, but none of the bigfeet want even to hear about it. So maybe it's time to setup a group outside of this mailing list to propose a change to the policy. El 21/07/2016 a las 19:54, Martin Sundahl escribió:
Love that idea :-)
— Sincerely Martin Sundahl Adeodc aps
On July 21, 2016 at 13:51:04, webhoster Info (info@webhoster.ag <mailto:info@webhoster.ag>) wrote:
Greetings,
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>.
+1
You will get back a huge amount of unused ips. The millions of additionally money can be divided among all LIRs.
Best regards =)$ Jan Schumacher webhoster.de <http://webhoster.de/> AG ---- 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 21.07.2016 19:50, webhoster Info wrote:
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips.
It is simple, it is fair, it is effective. This will solve the problem for twenty years. I do not understand why we can not proceed in this way? femur
IPv4 has been close to death in many many years and if a LIR get X more IPv4 is still not enough so why not start deploy IPv6! I’m very disappointed that LIR’s still discuss more and more IPv4 in 2016. IPv4 with CGN is lipstick on a pig…. https://ipv4.rip <https://ipv4.rip/>
21 juli 2016 kl. 21:30 skrev Paweł Wojtal <ripe@blokowe.pl>:
On 21.07.2016 19:50, webhoster Info wrote:
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips.
It is simple, it is fair, it is effective. This will solve the problem for twenty years. I do not understand why we can not proceed in this way?
femur
---- 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.
Torbjörn Eklöv | Interlan Gefle AB Norra Kungsgatan 5, 803 20 Gävle Växel: 026-18 50 00 | Direkt: 070-683 51 75 http://www.dnssecandipv6.se <http://www.dnssecandipv6.se/> "Ever since I can remember I always wanted to use IPv6. To me that was better than being president of the United States. To use IPv6 was to own the world."
On 21.07.2016 21:35, Torbjörn Eklöv wrote:
IPv4 has been close to death in many many years and if a LIR get X more IPv4 is still not enough so why not start deploy IPv6! I’m very disappointed that LIR’s still discuss more and more IPv4 in 2016. IPv4 with CGN is lipstick on a pig….
IPV6 is very nice dream, but nobody believes in the implementation on production. femur
21 juli 2016 kl. 21:44 skrev Paweł Wojtal <ripe@blokowe.pl>:
On 21.07.2016 21:35, Torbjörn Eklöv wrote:
IPv4 has been close to death in many many years and if a LIR get X more IPv4 is still not enough so why not start deploy IPv6! I’m very disappointed that LIR’s still discuss more and more IPv4 in 2016. IPv4 with CGN is lipstick on a pig….
IPV6 is very nice dream, but nobody believes in the implementation on production.
???? Have you tested to deploy it? I have done it in several cases for ISP’s and it works, if you know what you are doing….. Please take a look at https://dnssecandipv6.se/ <https://dnssecandipv6.se/> and my IPv6 pages, most of them are in Swedish but with Google translate. IPv6 is easy to deploy if you understand IPv4, most is exactly the same but FHS is more complicated with IPv6.
femur
---- 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.
Torbjörn Eklöv | Interlan Gefle AB Norra Kungsgatan 5, 803 20 Gävle Växel: 026-18 50 00 | Direkt: 070-683 51 75 http://www.dnssecandipv6.se <http://www.dnssecandipv6.se/> "Ever since I can remember I always wanted to use IPv6. To me that was better than being president of the United States. To use IPv6 was to own the world."
IPV6 is very nice dream, but nobody believes in the implementation on production.
???? Have you tested to deploy it? I have done it in several cases for ISP’s and it works, if you know what you are doing….. Please take a look at https://dnssecandipv6.se/ and my IPv6 pages, most of them are in Swedish but with Google translate. IPv6 is easy to deploy if you understand IPv4, most is exactly the same but FHS is more complicated with IPv6.
Don't be funny. I do not suggest it is difficult to implement. Everyone can do it. But I do suggest the same as Riccardo Gori. The big players are not interested in it. So the whole idea is unusable! My personal enthusiasm is not enough, because IPv6 is useless for production. I am sure you know what I mean. fe
21 juli 2016 kl. 22:16 skrev Paweł Wojtal <ripe@blokowe.pl>:
My personal enthusiasm is not enough, because IPv6 is useless for production. I am sure you know what I mean.
No, please tell me. My company have used IPv6 internally and for our customers in more than 10 years with ”no” problems som please tell me what your issues is. Torbjörn Eklöv | Interlan Gefle AB Norra Kungsgatan 5, 803 20 Gävle Växel: 026-18 50 00 | Direkt: 070-683 51 75 http://www.dnssecandipv6.se <http://www.dnssecandipv6.se/> "Ever since I can remember I always wanted to use IPv6. To me that was better than being president of the United States. To use IPv6 was to own the world."
On 21.07.2016 22:20, Torbjörn Eklöv wrote:
No, please tell me. My company have used IPv6 internally and for our customers in more than 10 years with ”no” problems som please tell me what your issues is.
Give me a web address in your ipv6 space, please. When I will see the page from ipv4, I will apologize. femur
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:30:57PM +0200, Pawe?? Wojtal wrote:
On 21.07.2016 22:20, Torbjörn Eklöv wrote:
No, please tell me. My company have used IPv6 internally and for our customers in more than 10 years with ?no? problems som please tell me what your issues is.
Give me a web address in your ipv6 space, please. When I will see the page from ipv4, I will apologize.
Not having IPv6 on your end is not our fault. Go and deploy. 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
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:44:12PM +0200, Pawe?? Wojtal wrote:
On 21.07.2016 21:35, Torbjörn Eklöv wrote:
IPv4 has been close to death in many many years and if a LIR get X more IPv4 is still not enough so why not start deploy IPv6! I?m very disappointed that LIR?s still discuss more and more IPv4 in 2016. IPv4 with CGN is lipstick on a pig?.
IPV6 is very nice dream, but nobody believes in the implementation on production.
Please do not tell that to Google, Youtube, Facebook, LinkedIn, T-Mobile DE and US, Verizon, most german cable and DSL ISPs, ... Production quality deployment has happened in many networks years ago. 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
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 22:19, Gert Doering wrote:
Google, Youtube, Facebook, LinkedIn,
... and Netflix represent over 90% of my whole IPv6 traffic. But only about one third of the total traffic. And not all of my customers accept IPv6 (like in "we only configured our firewall for IPv4" - IPv6 dies on the CPE LAN). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 04:59:18PM +0200, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 22:19, Gert Doering wrote:
Google, Youtube, Facebook, LinkedIn,
... and Netflix represent over 90% of my whole IPv6 traffic. But only about one third of the total traffic.
So what's the largest IPv4 only site today (genuinely curious)? I've heard "trustworthy rumors" that major CDNs are bringing IPv6 "real soon now" (Fastly, AWS), so if it's related to that, things should improve then...
And not all of my customers accept IPv6 (like in "we only configured our firewall for IPv4" - IPv6 dies on the CPE LAN).
So why are your customers anyone else's problem? 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
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, at 17:27, Gert Doering wrote:
So what's the largest IPv4 only site today (genuinely curious)?
Twitter ? Amazon ? (neither .com nor .fr nor .de does not return AAAA) Random other e-commerce sites ?
I've heard "trustworthy rumors" that major CDNs are bringing IPv6 "real soon now" (Fastly, AWS), so if it's related to that, things should improve then...
That also....
So why are your customers anyone else's problem?
Because "anyone else" does include "big old players" that have comfortable amount of unused IPv4 space and take my customers when they ask "more IPv4 space", by providing them "free" /27 to /24. As previously explained on APWG, there's a competitive problem : some people are kindly suggesting that new players get out of the lucrative (money-making) markets. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
SKYPE ... NO any ipv6 support On 7/26/2016 12:03 AM, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Mon, Jul 25, 2016, at 17:27, Gert Doering wrote:
So what's the largest IPv4 only site today (genuinely curious)? Twitter ? Amazon ? (neither .com nor .fr nor .de does not return AAAA) Random other e-commerce sites ?
I've heard "trustworthy rumors" that major CDNs are bringing IPv6 "real soon now" (Fastly, AWS), so if it's related to that, things should improve then... That also....
So why are your customers anyone else's problem? Because "anyone else" does include "big old players" that have comfortable amount of unused IPv4 space and take my customers when they ask "more IPv4 space", by providing them "free" /27 to /24. As previously explained on APWG, there's a competitive problem : some people are kindly suggesting that new players get out of the lucrative (money-making) markets.
-- Jivko Jelev General Manager ITNS Global - Bulgaria T/F +359 2 49 66 555 US/T +1 4044001713 M +359 88 5555122,+359 87 8553844 e-mail: j.jelev@itnsglobal.eu
Dne 25.7.2016 v 23:07 Jivko Jelev napsal(a):
SKYPE ... NO any ipv6 support
Not true anymore. At least with mobile clients, which are able to work on IPv6-only access network equipped with NAT64. -- Ondřej Caletka CESNET
W dniu 2016-07-26 o 10:02, Ondřej Caletka pisze:
Dne 25.7.2016 v 23:07 Jivko Jelev napsal(a):
SKYPE ... NO any ipv6 support Not true anymore. At least with mobile clients, which are able to work on IPv6-only access network equipped with NAT64.
But the 464XLAT doesn't mean that SKYPE supports/works on native IPV6. The NAT64 is like a denture - you are able to bite and eat food without own teeth. Best regards Tomasz Śląski
I'd imagine because those holding larger resources voted for the revised 2015 charging scheme (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620) - and those holding smaller resources forgot to vote. I've no idea why the 2015 policy was introduced. A single flat fee per LIR in no way encourages those hoarding unused resources to hand them back. A flat fee per /24 on the other hand does. This would penalise large resource holders - ultimately forcing them to relinquish resources or pass on/absorb costs with their own customers. The whole trading market would disappear when there is an associated cost with sitting on resources waiting for a buyer. Its common sense. Why isn't it in place? Who knows. Benjamin Lessani -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pawel Wojtal Sent: 21 July 2016 20:31 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account On 21.07.2016 19:50, webhoster Info wrote:
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips.
It is simple, it is fair, it is effective. This will solve the problem for twenty years. I do not understand why we can not proceed in this way? femur ---- 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.
I agree with the yearly fee for each /24. The money can be then used to force the adoption of ipv6. Dan ------ https://www.host.ag On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 22:43:06 +0300, <ripe@sonassihosting.com> wrote:
I'd imagine because those holding larger resources voted for the revised 2015 charging scheme (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620) - and those holding smaller resources forgot to vote.
I've no idea why the 2015 policy was introduced. A single flat fee per LIR in no way encourages those hoarding unused resources to hand them back. A flat fee per /24 on the other hand does. This would penalise large resource holders - ultimately forcing them to relinquish resources or pass on/absorb costs with their own customers.
The whole trading market would disappear when there is an associated cost with sitting on resources waiting for a buyer.
Its common sense. Why isn't it in place? Who knows.
Benjamin Lessani
-----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Pawel Wojtal Sent: 21 July 2016 20:31 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
On 21.07.2016 19:50, webhoster Info wrote:
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips.
It is simple, it is fair, it is effective. This will solve the problem for twenty years. I do not understand why we can not proceed in this way?
femur
---- 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.
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:46:26PM +0300, Host.AG wrote:
The money can be then used to force the adoption of ipv6.
How so? What can the RIPE NCC do, even with heaps of money, that they are not doing today? - free IPv6 training? (done today) - outreach activity to tell people about IPv6? (done today) - encourage IPv6 when registering IPv4 blocks? (done today) if ISPs do not *want* to deploy IPv6, there is nothing the RIPE NCC can do - even if you add some requirements ("you must have an IPv6 block, it must be advertised, and your mail server must do IPv6!") people will fulfill that to the letter - and stop there. The pressure needs to come from the community and from the peers - talk to the content providers that have no IPv6 today. If you're a content provider with IPv6, talk to the access providers that have no IPv6 today. If enough of you do that, possibly applying some mild pressure ("we're slowing down our IPv4 access because our CGN is overloaded, so if you want your content delivered over full speed, you need to use IPv6"), things will move. Asking the RIPE NCC to solve the problem for you is what we tried for the last 15 years, and while it got some results, this is not what needs to happen next. 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
Hi all, After reading this thread, I wonder to know if the following kind of idea has already been discussed. I apologize if so. It’s pretty obvious that there will always be confronted interests among LIRs if we put on the table the possibility that their membership fees should be based on their ipv4 resource use (one simple idea: your membership fee is <ripe_budget>/<total_ipv4_managed_by_ripe> * <your_allocated_ipv4 >). Those with very large allocations would see this as completely unfair as RIPE would be suddenly breaking in their business cases by altering their costs schemes. I do think that this would help the transition to IPv6 due to the financial pressure that big players would now have and it could even be heavily increased by recurrently charging extra amounts per allocated IPv4 address destined to a fund created to promote IPv6 adoption by paying out subsidies for every IPv4 address space returned to RIPE. However, I don’t think this will ever work because, to begin with, most probably it cannot be implemented without tons of legal issues. So if we forget about that idea, we have a free market based on supply and demand and a temporary way to get new IPv4 from RIPE: opening new LIR accounts, which is quite controverted. Whilst getting a /22 for every new LIR (not additional accounts) is IMHO a good thing for newcomers, once the last /8 is gone they will have to pay RIPE sign-up fees and then go to the market to get their… /24 maybe, and who knows how high prices will be some years ahead. In the opposite position, those who were storing IPv4 for years will be in the big business as they will hold the last /n of really unused IPv4 space and that won’t be transferred at the prices we are used today. Do we really want this scenario? For years it’s been clear that we’ll transition to IPv6 once there is really no other solution, we’ll keep paying more and more for unused IPv4 space held by third parties until there’s simply no more IPv4 left and then, during the real IPv6 transition, those with less IPv4 reserves (a word we never wanted to hear in the policies) will suffer much more than those who paid to have more reserves before the real IPv4 depletion. In this model actual sole winners are those who had and/or bought IPv4 now and didn’t really use it to a sold it later. Pure speculation. Furthermore the model is also giving a competitive advantage to all organizations holding unused IPv4 because old inefficient assignment policies. That’s also unfair. So my idea is, given these facts, why don’t let RIPE be the unique IPv4 market? If I recall correctly, we were told in the past that holding IPv4 space was not an ever-lasting right, space should be always in use and comply with all policies at the moment, and we shouldn’t charge end-users for the assignments made to them. I’m not asking to propose those rules. Let’s say that currently allocated IPv4 space is a right-to-use as long as you’re a LIR disregarding its actual usage, and that membership fees will be kept in the same context (a bigger member may pay triple the smaller as a maximum). However transfer policies change to disallow transfers between members and set RIPE as the sole entity allowed to transfer IPv4 space to/from members. It could even work in a similar way to a stock market with a big difference: price is static and set by RIPE, and the goal is to maintain the price as stable as possible (ideally completely unchanged) until the full depletion of IPv4. The idea behind is that, if RIPE impose a fixed price indefinitely both to sell and buy, sellers won’t wait till the depletion is closer and buyers will have a liquid market to buy from at a fixed price. This should transfer unused space to LIRs willing to use it and the losers will undoubtedly be speculators, which by the way no one wanted them in anything related to IP space management. New LIRs would have to pay both for the sign-up fees and the purchase of their first allocation, thus discouraging the setup of unneeded new LIRs. However RIPE might give some queue priorities to certain groups like (real) newcomers or externally audited LIRs able to properly justify the urgency for new space. The biggest contingency I see in this model is an early illiquid market, caused either because of many buyers wanting to buy all they can at lower market prices than today, or sellers unwilling to sell, in both cases because they really don’t believe in the model and they are hoping another policy change in a near future. To circumvent the contingency, current last /8 space could be reserved to newcomers (like it is today), and rest should open positions the sooner the better to match upcoming sellers. I believe that this model would redistribute currently unused IPv4 space to the parties that really need them, and ultimately would show everybody how far is IPv4’s end with much better accuracy. Add this to the fact that you’ll get back the same amount of money from your IPv4 no matter when you transition to IPv6, and then for many it might be worth starting the transition today instead of tomorrow. By the way, the price per IPv4 I had in mind while writing this was about 4€, one-time, but could be changed especially in the beginning by RIPE to reach an ideal market liquidity. In the long run it shouldn’t be changed to leverage all advantages brought by the fixed price. I’m surely missing many things related, and this is why I wondered to know if something like this has been already been discussed, as I would deem my post as a vague draft of the idea :) Kind regards, David. On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:46:26PM +0300, Host.AG wrote:
The money can be then used to force the adoption of ipv6.
How so? What can the RIPE NCC do, even with heaps of money, that they are not doing today?
- free IPv6 training? (done today) - outreach activity to tell people about IPv6? (done today) - encourage IPv6 when registering IPv4 blocks? (done today)
if ISPs do not *want* to deploy IPv6, there is nothing the RIPE NCC can do - even if you add some requirements ("you must have an IPv6 block, it must be advertised, and your mail server must do IPv6!") people will fulfill that to the letter - and stop there.
The pressure needs to come from the community and from the peers - talk to the content providers that have no IPv6 today. If you're a content provider with IPv6, talk to the access providers that have no IPv6 today.
If enough of you do that, possibly applying some mild pressure ("we're slowing down our IPv4 access because our CGN is overloaded, so if you want your content delivered over full speed, you need to use IPv6"), things will move.
Asking the RIPE NCC to solve the problem for you is what we tried for the last 15 years, and while it got some results, this is not what needs to happen next.
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
---- 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 Sun, Jul 24, 2016, at 05:07, David Sanchez wrote:
It’s pretty obvious that there will always be confronted interests among LIRs if we put on the table the possibility that their membership fees should be based on their ipv4 resource use (one simple idea: your .... However, I don’t think this will ever work because, to begin with, most probably it cannot be implemented without tons of legal issues.
That would actually be possible, at least in theory. Just remember that 5 years ago the billing scheme was based on tiers: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-499 In 2011, a new billing scheme, with even more tiers was rejected by the membership (or at least those voting at the GM). In 2012, two options were proposed, one maintaing tiers (rejected 124/148, 39 absentions) and one with a flat membership fee (approved 197/105, 11 abstentions) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/september-2012 Four years have passed since, and membership count has singificatively increased. So did vote count at GMs. So something can be tried, but there is absolutely no guarantee that it will pass.
I’m not asking to propose those rules. Let’s say that currently allocated IPv4 space is a right-to-use as long as you’re a LIR disregarding its actual usage, and that membership fees will be kept in the same context (a bigger member may pay triple the smaller as a maximum). However transfer policies change to disallow transfers between members and set RIPE as the sole entity allowed to transfer IPv4 space to/from members. It could even work in a similar way to a stock market with a big difference: price is static and set by RIPE, and the goal is to maintain the price as stable as possible (ideally completely unchanged) until the full depletion of IPv4.
Elvis Velea will be able to explain you how this may lead to a hidden transfer market, where transfers are not recorded in the database but baked by heavy legalese. This what seems to be happening in the US, so EMEA (without the A part) may be different due to international contact enforcement issues.... or not ...
New LIRs would have to pay both for the sign-up fees and the purchase of their first allocation, thus discouraging the setup of unneeded new LIRs.
Not going to work, RIPE NCC does not wish (and normally neither would you) to be come assimilated to a "seller" (commercial for-profit entity). Even if there are aspects that may get some people to consider it already "commercial, for-profit", the dutch tax administration is not YET there. As already told, we should have been at the right place (right mailing-lists) many years ago (minium 6-7, ideally 10 or more) in order to prevent the situation we have right now. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
I agree, but I think there are too many interests in having shortage of IPv4 regards Riccardo Il 21/07/2016 21:30, Paweł Wojtal ha scritto:
On 21.07.2016 19:50, webhoster Info wrote:
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>. You will get back a huge amount of unused ips.
It is simple, it is fair, it is effective. This will solve the problem for twenty years. I do not understand why we can not proceed in this way?
femur
---- 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.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
in my opinion ... now it is just like Communism ... the first time was like the Wild West - Some company like http://v4escrow.net Neighborhood boys became, great businessmen IPs ... as if these resources were working with the hammer on the anvil ... RIPE NCC should not look at those new users should look at the old register I think RIPE NCC knows the exact problem, but can not take action The solution is good "new LIR / ips 1024" for a moment I'm curious what will happen after 185/8 ... I prefer to give money to RIPE NCC rather than give the crooks From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of webhoster Info Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 8:51 PM To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account Greetings, just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0> . You will get back a huge amount of unused ips. The millions of additionally money can be divided among all LIRs. Best regards =)$ Jan Schumacher webhoster.de <http://webhoster.de/> AG
I am strongly in favor of this no need to divide the money: let's give the money to IETF to have an IPv8 (or IPv6 rev2): IPv6/IPv4 compatible and interoperable. regards Riccardo Il 21/07/2016 19:50, webhoster Info ha scritto:
Greetings,
just an idea: every LIR should pay a yearly fee for each ip or /24 in his account starting at 01/17 <x-apple-data-detectors://0>.
You will get back a huge amount of unused ips. The millions of additionally money can be divided among all LIRs.
Best regards =)$ Jan Schumacher webhoster.de <http://webhoster.de/> AG
---- 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.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 19:37, David Benwell wrote:
Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below?
Kindly proceed to the address-policy mailing-list where resource allocation policies happen ... or not ... Unfortunately a lot of people are/were not there at the right moment, so this is why we had the policies that we had in the past. And that's also why we have the policies that we have today. Policies are NOT VOTED by membership, but approved by the community using "consensus". The community being open and not limited to membership.
Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 12:28:56AM +0200, Radu-Adrian Feurdean wrote:
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016, at 19:37, David Benwell wrote:
Spot on. Is there such a voting system in place with ripe with enough votes to change the policy to something like you have said below?
Kindly proceed to the address-policy mailing-list where resource allocation policies happen ... or not ... Unfortunately a lot of people are/were not there at the right moment, so this is why we had the policies that we had in the past. And that's also why we have the policies that we have today.
I would argue that we have policies that work amazingly well for a very diverse membership structure across very different countries in the RIPE land. IPv4 exhaustion is not something caused by policy, but by people not moving to IPv6 in time - we had reasonably workable IPv6 allocation and assignment policies for over 15 years now. 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
Hi
I would argue that we have policies that work amazingly well for a very diverse membership structure across very different countries in the RIPE land.
Gert Doering
Do you really think so? I think they brings more problems only. Sometimes it would be better to stop to cure the patient due to it's simpler (about trying to save the rest of IPv4). -- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
Hi, On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:12:47AM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
I would argue that we have policies that work amazingly well for a very diverse membership structure across very different countries in the RIPE land.
Do you really think so? I think they brings more problems only. Sometimes it would be better to stop to cure the patient due to it's simpler (about trying to save the rest of IPv4).
So what exactly do you find not to your liking? - it is hard and/or expensive to get a big block of IPv6 addresses? - it is complicated and/or expensive to get an AS number? I assume that you complain that you cannot have as many IPv4 addresses as you want. I'm sorry, *this* is something address policy cannot fix, as we cannot magically create more than 32 bits of IPv4 space. The plain fact that you *can* get a /22 for a new LIR is what I consider a success of the policy process - imagine what you'd do today if we did not have a "last /8" policy that put aside a significant chunk of addresses to precisely enable you to have something today. 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
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 04:59:32PM +0000, Stefan van Westering wrote:
That combined with IPv6 becoming closer and closer, the question would be: will there be still active use of IPv4 by then? :)
This would be a sign of success of the (nowadays fairly restrictive) IPv4 policy. "The last scraps will last until no longer needed". 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
Hi Sergiu, Hi Abdelouahe, I disagree with this proposal. Sign up fee is for setting up a new LIR and related services offered by RIPE NCC. I don't see any reason to get discount or free menbership just because an organization already holds an LIR for example base in another country. I think RIPE NCC and Registration Services can confirm that an LIR is currently and previusly charged for a one time sign up fee and an annual fee based on GM approved charging scheme for following year. Abdelouahe: there's no fee for /22 or /29-/32 regards Riccardo Il 21/07/2016 18:14, Sergiu IANCIUC ha scritto:
Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
salut Ping,
agree with you, the additional LIR account have to be 50% from the first sign-up
Best Regards,
-
Sergiu IANCIUC
SC ITNS.NET SRL
MD-2068, Moldova
or. Chisinau, str. Miron Costin 3/1
tel.: +373 22 877 877
fax : +373 22 44 11 73
mobile: +373 690 22 111
url: http://www.itns.md
Save a tree... Don't print this email unless you have to...
Thursday, July 21, 2016, 7:08:02 PM, you wrote:
Hello,
A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account."
I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account.
I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate.
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
Thanks for discussing this subject.
Best regards,
Abdelouahed Haitoute
Ping IP network
---- 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.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable. So, NCC, please leave things as they are. 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
If you can't afford the measly few thousand euros for another LIR, perhaps you shouldn't be an LIR in the first place. I would keep prices as they are. Jonny On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable.
So, NCC, please leave things as they are.
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
-- Jonathan "Jon" Nguyen Owner, Nguyen Web Company c: +1 (603) 952-7740 www.nguyenwebcompany.net Email communications are confidential and intended for direct recipients and/or their authorized affiliate and/or personnel. As a disclaimer, emails received to jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net may be archived and/or made accessible to Nguyen Web Company administrators.
Let’s look at why ripe are limiting LR’s to a final /22 1. To ensure new members get a fair share of resources from the last /8 ? If the above is correct then the ability to register additional LR’s for the sole reason to get additional /22 could be seen to abuse the very reason why ripe put the limit in the first place. This does not protect resources but makes ripe a lot more money. Why have a rule in place then allow loop holes. You might had not bothered limiting LR’s to a /22 just charge XXX for an additional /22 if that is the true reason why ripe came out with the rule. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Nguyen Sent: 21 July 2016 17:59 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account If you can't afford the measly few thousand euros for another LIR, perhaps you shouldn't be an LIR in the first place. I would keep prices as they are. Jonny On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable. So, NCC, please leave things as they are. 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 -- Jonathan "Jon" Nguyen Owner, Nguyen Web Company c: +1 (603) 952-7740 www.nguyenwebcompany.net<http://www.nguyenwebcompany.net> Email communications are confidential and intended for direct recipients and/or their authorized affiliate and/or personnel. As a disclaimer, emails received to jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net<mailto:jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net> may be archived and/or made accessible to Nguyen Web Company administrators.
Honestly, this discussion keeps coming back on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on. Please read the list archive. There was a very very very _very_ lengthy discussion around this subject. Just read from A to Z before you start exactly the same discussion 3 months later. Nothing changed that justifies it. Thanks! With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 08750969<tel:08750969>. Registered office: 88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify abuse@clouvider.net<mailto:abuse@clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:06, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> wrote: Let's look at why ripe are limiting LR's to a final /22 1. To ensure new members get a fair share of resources from the last /8 ? If the above is correct then the ability to register additional LR's for the sole reason to get additional /22 could be seen to abuse the very reason why ripe put the limit in the first place. This does not protect resources but makes ripe a lot more money. Why have a rule in place then allow loop holes. You might had not bothered limiting LR's to a /22 just charge XXX for an additional /22 if that is the true reason why ripe came out with the rule. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jonathan Nguyen Sent: 21 July 2016 17:59 To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account If you can't afford the measly few thousand euros for another LIR, perhaps you shouldn't be an LIR in the first place. I would keep prices as they are. Jonny On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net<mailto:gert@space.net>> wrote: Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable. So, NCC, please leave things as they are. 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 -- Jonathan "Jon" Nguyen Owner, Nguyen Web Company c: +1 (603) 952-7740 www.nguyenwebcompany.net<http://www.nguyenwebcompany.net> Email communications are confidential and intended for direct recipients and/or their authorized affiliate and/or personnel. As a disclaimer, emails received to jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net<mailto:jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net> may be archived and/or made accessible to Nguyen Web Company administrators. ---- 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.
I'll second that. There is no reason to have the same endless discussion once again. It would be nice if we could reclaim unused IPv4 space, but it is not possible since it has turned into a commodity and no companies are willing to give it up voluntarily. Simply put, it's not going to happen. So, forget about the past and focus on the future instead. I think the current pricing of another LIR account is fine - by no means it should be lower, since that would just speed up the exhaustion of IPv4 while allowing Russian hustlers & hoarders to make a quick profit. Regards, Yoel Caspersen CEO Kviknet.dk ApS On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Dominik Nowacki <dominik@clouvider.co.uk> wrote:
Honestly, this discussion keeps coming back on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on.
Please read the list archive. There was a very very very _very_ lengthy discussion around this subject.
Just read from A to Z before you start exactly the same discussion 3 months later. Nothing changed that justifies it.
Thanks!
With Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki
Clouvider Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: *08750969* <08750969>. Registered office: *88 Wood Street, London, United Kingdom, EC2V 7RS*. Please note that Clouvider Limited may monitor email traffic data and also the content of email for the purposes of security and staff training. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the intended recipient. If you do not believe you are the intended recipient you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify *abuse@clouvider.net* <abuse@clouvider.net> of this e-mail immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. Clouvider Limited nor any of its employees therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
On 21 Jul 2016, at 18:06, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> wrote:
Let’s look at why ripe are limiting LR’s to a final /22
1. To ensure new members get a fair share of resources from the last /8 ?
If the above is correct then the ability to register additional LR’s for the sole reason to get additional /22 could be seen to abuse the very reason why ripe put the limit in the first place.
This does not protect resources but makes ripe a lot more money.
Why have a rule in place then allow loop holes. You might had not bothered limiting LR’s to a /22 just charge XXX for an additional /22 if that is the true reason why ripe came out with the rule.
*From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Nguyen *Sent:* 21 July 2016 17:59 *To:* Gert Doering <gert@space.net> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] Sign-up fee for additional LIR account
If you can't afford the measly few thousand euros for another LIR, perhaps you shouldn't be an LIR in the first place. I would keep prices as they are.
Jonny
On Thursday, July 21, 2016, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable.
So, NCC, please leave things as they are.
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
--
Jonathan "Jon" Nguyen
Owner, Nguyen Web Company
c: +1 (603) 952-7740
www.nguyenwebcompany.net
Email communications are confidential and intended for direct recipients and/or their authorized affiliate and/or personnel. As a disclaimer, emails received to jnguyen@nguyenwebcompany.net may be archived and/or made accessible to Nguyen Web Company administrators.
---- 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.
Hi, Il 21/07/2016 18:57, Gert Doering ha scritto:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 06:08:02PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account. I think the sign-up fee being equal for all sorts of LIR accounts is a very good thing, and the total amount is reasonable.
So, NCC, please leave things as they are. I totally agree with Gert regards Riccardo
Gert Doering -- NetMaster
---- 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.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello, This is my first time I'm joining this mailing-list, so my apologies if this subject has been brought up before. But I'd like to notify that the notified sentence (see first email) is a recent change in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016, that's why I've started this discussion. I think it's disproportional for RIPE to ask this sign-up fee for each additional LIR account, especially for a non profit organization. I understand there's a history regarding (old) allocation policies, but I'm just interested in lowering or removing the sign-up fee for each additional LIR account. When I request an additional LIR account, I'll be paying for the additional annually service fee which should be sufficient. Thanks for your contribution to this discussion. Best regards, Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network 2016-07-21 18:08 GMT+02:00 Ping IP <pingip.network@gmail.com>:
Hello,
A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account."
I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account.
I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
Thanks for discussing this subject.
Best regards,
Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network
Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:01:36PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I understand there's a history regarding (old) allocation policies, but I'm just interested in lowering or removing the sign-up fee for each additional LIR account. When I request an additional LIR account, I'll be paying for the additional annually service fee which should be sufficient.
We understand that you want more IPv4 addresses for free. *You* need to understand that IPv4 is running out, and for the sake of *other* new LIRs, you cannot have what is left. 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
What's the problem to return the IPs are not used, allocated before 2012 and forget about 185./8? ----- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov FastTelecom, CEO Tel.: +7 926 6908729 21.07.2016, 21:09, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:01:36PM +0200, Ping IP wrote:
I understand there's a history regarding (old) allocation policies, but I'm just interested in lowering or removing the sign-up fee for each additional LIR account. When I request an additional LIR account, I'll be paying for the additional annually service fee which should be sufficient.
We understand that you want more IPv4 addresses for free.
*You* need to understand that IPv4 is running out, and for the sake of *other* new LIRs, you cannot have what is left.
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 ,
---- 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 Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:13:29PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
What's the problem to return the IPs are not used, allocated before 2012 and forget about 185./8?
Feel free to... how much difference will it make? Will it be sufficient to avoid going to IPv6? How long will it draw out the pain instead? There's ~3.5 billion usable IPv4 addresses, and well over 6 billion humans on earth. In other words: not enough IPv4 to even have *one* public IPv4 address for every human. No matter how much you argue that point, and how often you ask for people to return their "endless supply" of unused addresses. There is not enough. 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
Hi, I agree Il 21/07/2016 20:24, Comtel ha scritto:
There must be a rule for all LIRs to implement IPv6. but I think there are too many interests in having shortage of IPv4 regards Riccardo As for IPv4 we suggest that ALL unused IPs go to RIPE and provided only for real needs.
1. Each LIR will have a minimum of 1024 IPs for own needs. 2. If additional IPs are not used, then they go back to RIPE 3. IPv4 must be only provided for real current projects, not for future use.
We need to separate: used IPv4 go to LIRs, unused IPv4 holded by RIPE. No exceptions.
-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand there's a history regarding (old) allocation policies, but I'm just interested in lowering or removing the sign-up fee for each additional LIR account. When I request an additional LIR account, I'll be paying for the additional annually service fee which should be sufficient.
You proposition sounds like "Let make IPs so cheap, so everybody can take as much as he want". I'm strictly against it. Because it will open an ability to get a lot of IPs just for store. The last /8 will end very very soon in this case. And then nobody will be able to get new IPs. Neither for little money, neighter for big money. And that day when ability to get new IPs from RIPE will be lost - those LIRs, who was able to get cheap IPs for store, will remove them from storing and start selling. And the price will be much more then we have today. $15 per IP. $20 per IP. Do we want such scenario? No. I prefer we all stay at current positions. It is nice and balanced now. Those LIR who REALLY need new IPs, can obtain them now. How determine if the LIR REALLY need new IPs? It's simple. He ready to pay for it. If LIR want to get more IPs and don't to want pay for it - he don't really need it. He just want to get as much IPs as he can get for keeping it in store. And trying to get maximum IPs at minimal cost. If you need IPs - you will pay for it. If you are not ready to pay for it - you don't need it. That is how I see it. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com
Wiadomość napisana przez Dmitriy Zemlyanoy <dmitriy@deltahost.com.ua> w dniu 21.07.2016, o godz. 22:29:
If LIR want to get more IPs and don't to want pay for it - he don't really need it. He just want to get as much IPs as he can get for keeping it in store. And trying to get maximum IPs at minimal cost.
If you need IPs - you will pay for it. If you are not ready to pay for it - you don't need it. That is how I see it.
I agree with this part. In my opinion: LIR has a lot of IPs => LIR has a lot of customers or payed services => LIR earns more money That’s why I think that all LIRs have to pay fixed rate for each /24 block. If they really need them they will pay for it. If they are not ready to pay for it - they don’t use their IPs efficiently or they have too many blocks. I’m not writing about the price per /24 block. Just about general - and very simple - rule. Kind regards, Michal
We agree with this too: "LIR has a lot of IPs => LIR has a lot of customers or payed services => LIR earns more money" LIR's should pay for extra IP's, however It would be nicer if there are some discounts for new and smaller LIR's so they can expand their business more quickly and easier on the start. The current "market" rate of $10 per IPv4 is simply to high... All the best, BlackHOST <https://black.host/> NOC Team On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 10:47 PM, Michal Biernacki < michal.biernacki@grupahexa.pl> wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Dmitriy Zemlyanoy <dmitriy@deltahost.com.ua> w dniu 21.07.2016, o godz. 22:29:
If LIR want to get more IPs and don't to want pay for it - he don't really need it. He just want to get as much IPs as he can get for keeping it in store. And trying to get maximum IPs at minimal cost.
If you need IPs - you will pay for it. If you are not ready to pay for it - you don't need it. That is how I see it.
I agree with this part. In my opinion:
LIR has a lot of IPs => LIR has a lot of customers or payed services => LIR earns more money
That’s why I think that all LIRs have to pay fixed rate for each /24 block. If they really need them they will pay for it. If they are not ready to pay for it - they don’t use their IPs efficiently or they have too many blocks.
I’m not writing about the price per /24 block. Just about general - and very simple - rule.
Kind regards, Michal
---- 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.
LIR's should pay for extra IP's, however It would be nicer if there are some discounts for new and smaller LIR's so they can expand their business more quickly and easier on the start. The current "market" rate of $10 per IPv4 is simply to high...
LIR - it is LIR. And no matter if it is small or large. Terms should be the same to everybody. Otherwise somebody may try to abuse and hide "large" LIR behind tens of "small" LIRs to get maximum IPs at minimal cost. -- Dmitriy Zemlyanoy. DeltaHost. http://deltahost.com
And what should RIPE NCC do with lot's of money?! They should back those on next year billing schema :) On 7/22/2016 1:17 AM, Michal Biernacki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana przez Dmitriy Zemlyanoy <dmitriy@deltahost.com.ua <mailto:dmitriy@deltahost.com.ua>> w dniu 21.07.2016, o godz. 22:29:
If LIR want to get more IPs and don't to want pay for it - he don't really need it. He just want to get as much IPs as he can get for keeping it in store. And trying to get maximum IPs at minimal cost.
If you need IPs - you will pay for it. If you are not ready to pay for it - you don't need it. That is how I see it.
I agree with this part. In my opinion:
LIR has a lot of IPs => LIR has a lot of customers or payed services => LIR earns more money
That’s why I think that all LIRs have to pay fixed rate for each /24 block. If they really need them they will pay for it. If they are not ready to pay for it - they don’t use their IPs efficiently or they have too many blocks.
I’m not writing about the price per /24 block. Just about general - and very simple - rule.
Kind regards, Michal
---- 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.
The best description on this ML is for "Dmitriy Zemlyanoy",Cheap LIR signup does not help who really need IPs,It help IP-Broker to Store-To-Sell 185/8 :) On 7/22/2016 12:59 AM, Dmitriy Zemlyanoy wrote:
I understand there's a history regarding (old) allocation policies, but I'm just interested in lowering or removing the sign-up fee for each additional LIR account. When I request an additional LIR account, I'll be paying for the additional annually service fee which should be sufficient.
You proposition sounds like "Let make IPs so cheap, so everybody can take as much as he want". I'm strictly against it. Because it will open an ability to get a lot of IPs just for store.
The last /8 will end very very soon in this case. And then nobody will be able to get new IPs. Neither for little money, neighter for big money. And that day when ability to get new IPs from RIPE will be lost - those LIRs, who was able to get cheap IPs for store, will remove them from storing and start selling. And the price will be much more then we have today. $15 per IP. $20 per IP.
Do we want such scenario? No.
I prefer we all stay at current positions. It is nice and balanced now. Those LIR who REALLY need new IPs, can obtain them now. How determine if the LIR REALLY need new IPs? It's simple. He ready to pay for it.
If LIR want to get more IPs and don't to want pay for it - he don't really need it. He just want to get as much IPs as he can get for keeping it in store. And trying to get maximum IPs at minimal cost.
If you need IPs - you will pay for it. If you are not ready to pay for it - you don't need it. That is how I see it.
Hi im agree with ping, the additional LIR account have to free or lower than 2000 *باتشکر،امیرمحمدفاتح **مدیرفنی،تحقیق و توسعه* سامانه کاوشگر ایده*|*مسئولیت محدود تلفن: 02166555391-02177066309*|*فکس: 021897885350 موبایل: *09128892669* ایمیل: *fateh@discoverwebidea.com* <fateh@discoverwebidea.com> وب سایت: *www.discoverwebidea.com <http://www.discoverwebidea.com/>* *وب ایده را در دنبال کنید:* [image: webide facebook page] <https://www.facebook.com/webide> [image: webide instagram page] <http://instagram.com/webide?ref=badge> [image: webide telegram channel] <https://telegram.me/webidea> On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Ping IP <pingip.network@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account."
I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account.
I'd like to suggest to remove the one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 for each additional LIR account. Or at least lower the sign-up fee to an acceptable rate. I'm not talking about the sign-up fee for a new LIR member, but about the sign-up fee for an additional LIR account.
Thanks for discussing this subject.
Best regards,
Abdelouahed Haitoute Ping IP network
---- 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 21 Jul 2016, at 18:08, Ping IP <pingip.network@gmail.com> wrote:
A recent change has been made in the Billing and Fee Schedule 2016 , regarding the following sentence: "Members are charged a one-time sign-up fee of EUR 2,000 (two thousand euro) for each new LIR account."
I'd like to discuss why an existing LIR member has to pay the sign-up fee again? As a new small LIR I'm paying a high price for a /22 IPv4. I think it's disproportionately to charge the sign-up fee again from an existing LIR member who is requesting an additional LIR account.
The per LIR fee and the rule you can not transfer resources away from it in the first 24 months has been designed with a purpose: to make sure we do conserve the last bit of IPv4 resources we have. Removing those limitations (ie: making additional LIR accounts significantly cheaper and/or free) removes the purpose: why not just give resources to anyone who wants them (based on the old rules: if you can prove you need it, you can get it). We might as well close a deal with Proctor & Gamble to give away the final resources with some washing powder. -- 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
participants (42)
-
A.M.Fateh -
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Anthony Somerset -
Arjan van der Oest -
BlackHOST Ltd. -
C. Rodler -
Chris Knipe -
Christopher Demicoli -
Comtel -
David Benwell -
David Ponzone -
David Sanchez -
Dmitriy Zemlyanoy -
Dominik Nowacki -
Erik - 8tto Trading Sa -
Gert Doering -
Host.AG -
Jivko Jelev -
Jonathan Nguyen -
jonathanlovell＠coretel.co.uk -
Leopoldo Maestro - Soltia Consulting SL -
lir＠cmtl.ru
-
Martin Sundahl -
Michal Biernacki -
Mozafary Mohammad -
Network Operations Centre -
Ondřej Caletka -
Paweł Wojtal -
Pelz -
Ping IP -
Radu-Adrian Feurdean -
REG ID: pl.skonet -
Riccardo Gori -
ripe＠sonassihosting.com -
Sergiu IANCIUC -
Silviu Vladuti -
Stefan van Westering -
SupportCat -
Torbjörn Eklöv -
webhoster Info -
Yoel Caspersen