Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
To address Nigels questions for a change: * Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem that must be prevented?
I see it that way. It is another attempt to game the run out fairly policy that is in place.
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. If a member tries to circumvent this in bad faith I would have no problem with the RIPE NCC holding the member accountable for violating the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement and proceed with the actions as stated in ripe-640 (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources). If the current SSA doesn't mandate such action I think that we should add it. Are there attemps right now to fool the RIPE NCC into opening additional accounts? Regards Sebastian -- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg Tel +49-911-9352-1335 - Fax +49-911-9352-100 http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur. One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Simon
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
+1 (ignoring the fact that opening a new legal entity is quite easy in most parts of the RIPE region) best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel e-mail: support@de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH Phone: +49 69 1730 902-11 Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa Fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln, HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net Zentrale: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln
Greetings, This message has been automatically generated in response to the creation of a trouble ticket regarding Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss, a summary of which appears below. There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been assigned an ID of [rt.cablenetcy.net #218229]. Please include the string [rt.cablenetcy.net #218229] in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. To do so, you may reply to this message. Thank you, ncc@cablenetcy.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
+1 (ignoring the fact that opening a new legal entity is quite easy in most parts of the RIPE region) best regards Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Tremmel e-mail: support@de-cix.net DE-CIX Management GmbH Phone: +49 69 1730 902-11 Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt Geschaeftsfuehrer Harald A. Summa Fax: +49 69 4056 2716 Registergericht AG Koeln, HRB 51135 http://www.de-cix.net Zentrale: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Koeln ---- 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 11 Feb 2016, at 15:37, Wolfgang Tremmel wrote:
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
+1
(ignoring the fact that opening a new legal entity is quite easy in most parts of the RIPE region)
You really have two approaches to get someone to do something you want: Incentive or disincentive. Perhaps there should be incentives to return unused space. Perhaps there should be higher fees (disincentive) for secondary and further LIRs, although this would be hard to police I think. But this seems fair, really it is in all interests for RIR to be run efficiently, creating more LIRs is just administrative burden although there may be edge cases that require it. Fine if so, but make it so that there is an additional cost for that unnecessary burden and discourage abuse of resources. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members. It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement. just my two cents Matthias -- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Ungargasse 58/13 1030 Wien, Österreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias Šubik Hotline: +43 780 363636 Mobil.: +43 676 83820-787
just get ipv6. On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote:
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented the v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps. I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22. This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked. -Tim On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote:
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- <http://liquidns.com> Tim Armstrong Technical Director Treestle B.V. Goudsesingel 78, 3011 KD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce: 59116803 Office: +31 (0) 10 3400 720 Mobile: +31 (0) 61 7544 472 Treestle runs one of the world's fastest global managed DNS platforms at www.liquidns.com <http://www.liquidns.com/> and offers LiquiD AutoScaler, a website-user centric autoscaling solution at www.liquidautoscaler.com <http://www.liquidautoscaler.com/>. Independent software vendor for: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> Member of: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> <https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B013UXHSOO/?ref=_ptnr_pe_> <https://cloudstore.interoute.com/LiquiDAutoScalerBasic><https://liquidautoscaler.com/documentation/other/quickstart>
Hi I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
在 2016年2月11日，下午5:09，Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com> 写道：
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote: just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote: Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- <ghbchbij.png> Tim Armstrong
Technical Director Treestle B.V. Goudsesingel 78, 3011 KD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce: 59116803 Office: +31 (0) 10 3400 720 Mobile: +31 (0) 61 7544 472
<aifibhfe.png>
Treestle runs one of the world's fastest global managed DNS platforms at www.liquidns.com and offers LiquiD AutoScaler, a website-user centric autoscaling solution at www.liquidautoscaler.com.
<aifibhfe.png>
Independent software vendor for:
<aifibhfe.png> Member of: <gjjbefjh.png>
<caagfdcg.png> <dbaabeei.png><cfbgaddf.png> ---- 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.
Unfortunately this issue spans both policy and membership, as it's the limitations on the IPv4 space that is the trigger for the multiple LIR discussion. The issues can't be accurately discussed as distinct parts, they are co-dependant. -Tim. On 11/02/16 17:15, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
在 2016年2月11日，下午5:09，Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com <mailto:tim@treestle.com>> 写道：
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote:
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what > action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
-- <http://liquidns.com> Tim Armstrong Technical Director Treestle B.V. Goudsesingel 78, 3011 KD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce: 59116803 Office: +31 (0) 10 3400 720 Mobile: +31 (0) 61 7544 472 Treestle runs one of the world's fastest global managed DNS platforms at www.liquidns.com <http://www.liquidns.com/> and offers LiquiD AutoScaler, a website-user centric autoscaling solution at www.liquidautoscaler.com <http://www.liquidautoscaler.com/>. Independent software vendor for: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> Member of: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> <https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B013UXHSOO/?ref=_ptnr_pe_> <https://cloudstore.interoute.com/LiquiDAutoScalerBasic><https://liquidautoscaler.com/documentation/other/quickstart>
Hi, On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:15:13PM +0100, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
Right. (And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked). For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes. Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions. Gert Doering -- no hats -- 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, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true: a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good... rgds, SAscha Luck
On 11.02.2016, at 17:34, Sascha Luck [ml] <ripe-md@c4inet.net> wrote:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
I do not see any other reason for a legal entity to *open* a 2nd LIR except to circumvent policy. It is a different thing on mergers and on different entities under common management where there might legitimate reasons like: - having one legal entity per country or - having different legal entities for different parts of the business Also I see no way for NCC to check on point b), so I am in favor of the simple "if you have one (or already more then one) LIR, you do not get another one for the same legal entity" rule. best regards Wolfgang
Greetings, This message has been automatically generated in response to the creation of a trouble ticket regarding Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss, a summary of which appears below. There is no need to reply to this message right now. Your ticket has been assigned an ID of [rt.cablenetcy.net #218339]. Please include the string [rt.cablenetcy.net #218339] in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. To do so, you may reply to this message. Thank you, ncc@cablenetcy.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On 11.02.2016, at 17:34, Sascha Luck [ml] <ripe-md@c4inet.net> wrote:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
I do not see any other reason for a legal entity to *open* a 2nd LIR except to circumvent policy. It is a different thing on mergers and on different entities under common management where there might legitimate reasons like: - having one legal entity per country or - having different legal entities for different parts of the business Also I see no way for NCC to check on point b), so I am in favor of the simple "if you have one (or already more then one) LIR, you do not get another one for the same legal entity" rule. best regards Wolfgang ---- 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 Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good...
+1 Of course whenever you have rules, someone will be trying to get around them. Stopping "single legal entities" to open additional LIR:s will not make it impossible to still get several /22:s but at least we will not encourage such behaviour. At the time for RIPE 71 I was told that NCC staff were very frustrated because they could see this kind of applications and there were not much they could do about it. Apparently there are/were cases when entities - or natural persons - were opening *lots* of LIR:s in order to merge them as soon as they received the /22 IPv4. Cheers, Daniel _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread (it's Friday), but is there not a policy stating a mandatory wait time before a new LIR can be merged into another? If NCC staff can see that 1 LIR is opening new LIR's (even with another new legal entity behind it), this can be then sent to a review board to either allow or deny the merge. NCC staff will have the most experience with this, if they can see someone blatantly breaking the policy they should be able to at least push the applications to an entity to stop this behavior. -- -- Regards, Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer Buzcom / FibreWiFi
Daniel Stolpe <mailto:stolpe@resilans.se> 12 February 2016 at 13:27
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
+1
Of course whenever you have rules, someone will be trying to get around them. Stopping "single legal entities" to open additional LIR:s will not make it impossible to still get several /22:s but at least we will not encourage such behaviour. At the time for RIPE 71 I was told that NCC staff were very frustrated because they could see this kind of applications and there were not much they could do about it.
Apparently there are/were cases when entities - or natural persons - were opening *lots* of LIR:s in order to merge them as soon as they received the /22 IPv4.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Sascha Luck [ml] <mailto:ripe-md@c4inet.net> 11 February 2016 at 16:34 On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good...
rgds, SAscha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Gert Doering <mailto:gert@space.net> 11 February 2016 at 16:25 Hi,
Right.
(And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked).
For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes.
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
Gert Doering -- no hats ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. h.lu@anytimechinese.com <mailto:h.lu@anytimechinese.com> 11 February 2016 at 16:15 Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
? 2016?2?11?,??5:09,Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com <mailto:tim@treestle.com>> ??:
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias S(ubik wrote:
Additionally ...
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what > action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Tim Armstrong <mailto:tim@treestle.com> 11 February 2016 at 16:09 That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented the v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
I would be glad to hear someone from the NCC answer to that. I was a bit surprised to find the amount of frustration from the staff, on an issue I was not much aware about. I think that if NCC staff finds this kind of issue a big problem they should let the comunity know. Do they read this mailing list btw? Cheers, Daniel On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Hal Ponton wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread (it's Friday), but is there not a policy stating a mandatory wait time before a new LIR can be merged into another?
If NCC staff can see that 1 LIR is opening new LIR's (even with another new legal entity behind it), this can be then sent to a review board to either allow or deny the merge. NCC staff will have the most experience with this, if they can see someone blatantly breaking the policy they should be able to at least push the applications to an entity to stop this behavior. -- -- Regards,
Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer
Buzcom / FibreWiFi
Daniel Stolpe 12 February 2016 at 13:27
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
+1
Of course whenever you have rules, someone will be trying to get around them. Stopping "single legal entities" to open additional LIR:s will not make it impossible to still get several /22:s but at least we will not encourage such behaviour. At the time for RIPE 71 I was told that NCC staff were very frustrated because they could see this kind of applications and there were not much they could do about it.
Apparently there are/were cases when entities - or natural persons - were opening *lots* of LIR:s in order to merge them as soon as they received the /22 IPv4.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add or remove addresses. Sascha Luck [ml] 11 February 2016 at 16:34 On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good...
rgds, SAscha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". >From here, you can add or remove addresses. Gert Doering 11 February 2016 at 16:25 Hi,
Right.
(And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked).
For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes.
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
Gert Doering -- no hats ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. h.lu@anytimechinese.com 11 February 2016 at 16:15 Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
? 2016?2?11????5:09?Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com> ???
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote: just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote: Additionally ? On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: * Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Tim Armstrong 11 February 2016 at 16:09 That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented the v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
_________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
Dear Hal, Daniel, all, We have reported to the community on this trend in the Address Policy Working Group at all RIPE Meetings since RIPE 69 in November 2014. So we are glad to see the membership discussing the issue. And yes, we are following the discussion. To answer your question on wait times for mergers, I can confirm that there is no mandated wait time before a merger can take place. Regards, Kind regards, Laura Cobley Customer Services Manager RIPE NCC On 12/02/16 14:49, Daniel Stolpe wrote:
I would be glad to hear someone from the NCC answer to that. I was a bit surprised to find the amount of frustration from the staff, on an issue I was not much aware about. I think that if NCC staff finds this kind of issue a big problem they should let the comunity know.
Do they read this mailing list btw?
Cheers, Daniel
On Fri, 12 Feb 2016, Hal Ponton wrote:
Forgive me if this has already been mentioned in this thread (it's Friday), but is there not a policy stating a mandatory wait time before a new LIR can be merged into another?
If NCC staff can see that 1 LIR is opening new LIR's (even with another new legal entity behind it), this can be then sent to a review board to either allow or deny the merge. NCC staff will have the most experience with this, if they can see someone blatantly breaking the policy they should be able to at least push the applications to an entity to stop this behavior. -- -- Regards,
Hal Ponton Senior Network Engineer
Buzcom / FibreWiFi
Daniel Stolpe 12 February 2016 at 13:27
On Thu, 11 Feb 2016, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:
+1
Of course whenever you have rules, someone will be trying to get around them. Stopping "single legal entities" to open additional LIR:s will not make it impossible to still get several /22:s but at least we will not encourage such behaviour. At the time for RIPE 71 I was told that NCC staff were very frustrated because they could see this kind of applications and there were not much they could do about it.
Apparently there are/were cases when entities - or natural persons - were opening *lots* of LIR:s in order to merge them as soon as they received the /22 IPv4.
Cheers,
Daniel
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".
From here, you can add or remove addresses. Sascha Luck [ml] 11 February 2016 at 16:34 On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:25:09PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
That I could get behind, because this offence, as stated, requires two facts to be true:
a) an entity opens another LIR AND b) it does so in order to circumvent policy
So, opening another LIR would require the NCC to ascertain motive before it approves the second LIR and *that* I could live with. For instance, someone trying to open $lots_of_lirs in a short time frame would be strong circumstantial evidence that they are up to no good...
rgds, SAscha Luck
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists".
From here, you can add or remove addresses. Gert Doering 11 February 2016 at 16:25 Hi,
Right.
(And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked).
For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes.
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
Gert Doering -- no hats ---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. h.lu@anytimechinese.com 11 February 2016 at 16:15 Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
? 2016?2?11????5:09?Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com> ???
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote: just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote: Additionally ? On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote: * Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member.
I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR.
Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses. Tim Armstrong 11 February 2016 at 16:09 That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented the v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 45 094 556741-1193 104 30 Stockholm
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:25 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 05:15:13PM +0100, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
Right.
(And as such, I follow this discussion with some mild amusement - very engaged, and most of it totally missing the question asked).
For the record: the policy we have seems to work as it was designed, namely, "new LIRs can still get IPv4 addresses". Can they get as much as they want? No. Would they get as much as they want if we loosen up the policy? No(!). Would that hurt later entrants into the market? Yes.
Thus, I think the NCC should not permit single entities to open up multiple LIRs to weasel around policy restrictions.
+1 -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
On 11.02.2016, at 17:02, Janis Jaunosans <jj@streamnetworks.lv> wrote:
just get ipv6. for the record: I wrote to make it harder to get the /22 inside one legal entity. And I would very much like to see large old allocations cut, as current distribution of unused IP space is unbalanced. But this is unthinkable right now.
Matthias ps: and yes, we all know IPv6 is the cure, but there is still no IPv6 requirement in most buying processes, so there is even new kit without it on the market.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote:
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- UCND United City Network Development GmbH Ungargasse 58/13 1030 Wien, Österreich FN 188089b beim Handelsgericht Wien UID ATU 54974906 Mag. Matthias Šubik Hotline: +43 780 363636 Mobil.: +43 676 83820-787
Hey Everyone: I said publicly last meeting it might not a good idea to block it as I see it is fairly easy to game the system even if you banned it. But on a second thought, and after talking with few fellow colleagues, I would say I have no objection on the matter. The last /22 suppose to last longer to support IPv6 in the end. With regards. LU On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Sebastian Wiesinger < sebastian.wiesinger@noris.net> wrote:
To address Nigels questions for a change:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]:
1. Is the activity of members opening additional LIR accounts a problem that must be prevented?
I see it that way. It is another attempt to game the run out fairly policy that is in place.
2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what action should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention?
Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. If a member tries to circumvent this in bad faith I would have no problem with the RIPE NCC holding the member accountable for violating the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement and proceed with the actions as stated in ripe-640 (Closure of Members, Deregistration of Internet Resources and Legacy Internet Resources). If the current SSA doesn't mandate such action I think that we should add it.
Are there attemps right now to fool the RIPE NCC into opening additional accounts?
Regards
Sebastian
-- noris network AG - Thomas-Mann-Straße 16-20 - D-90471 Nürnberg Tel +49-911-9352-1335 - Fax +49-911-9352-100
http://www.noris.de - The IT-Outsourcing Company
Vorstand: Ingo Kraupa (Vorsitzender), Joachim Astel - Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Stefan Schnabel - AG Nürnberg HRB 17689
---- If you don't want to receive emails from the RIPE NCC members-discuss mailing list, please log in to your LIR Portal account and go to the general page: https://lirportal.ripe.net/general/
Click on "Edit my LIR details", under "Subscribed Mailing Lists". From here, you can add or remove addresses.
-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.
participants (16)
-
Daniel Stolpe -
Gert Doering -
h.lu＠anytimechinese.com -
Hal Ponton -
IT/NOC Department via RT -
Janis Jaunosans -
Laura Cobley -
Lu Heng -
Matthias Šubik -
Paul Civati -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sascha Luck [ml] -
Sebastian Wiesinger -
Simon Lockhart -
Tim Armstrong -
Wolfgang Tremmel