November 2013 - ncc-services-wg

is IPv4 address solicitation compatible with DB AUP or spam?
by Wilfried Woeber 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Well, "it" seems to take off, we keep getting solicitations for IPv4 address transfer to (presumably) all contact addresses linked to in our resource objects. Some of these messages are from an idividual who seemingly is advertising for at least 2 different brokers. So here's my question: is that sort of spamming compatible with the DB-AUP? How about some sort of opt-out tag, telling everyone and her dog: "no, don't bother to ask, we won't give you our addresses"? Thanks, Wilfried

2 1

Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)
by Tore Anderson 04 Nov '13

04 Nov '13

Hi WG, Clarifying the "legal" status of the legacy holders without taking away any of their pre-existing rights is an improvement over the current undefined and ad-hoc practices, and I think it will likely cause a positive incentive for these organisations to actively participate in the community and to keep their registry entries accurate, which is a benefit not only to the legacy holders themselves and the RIPE NCC and its membership, but the entire internet and routing communities as a whole. I believe 2012-07 accomplishes the above while striking a decent balance between the interests of all involved parties. That said, I do not see the purpose of section 2.4 «Option to engage directly with the RIPE NCC». Section 2.2 «Option to become a RIPE NCC member» seems to me to accomplish the same thing, only without requiring a new contract class to be established. Having only two options (full member, or registered via a sponsoring LIR) would maintain consistency with current operational practices regarding PI assignments, and would reduce the operational impact of this policy as existing business structures and practices already instated for PI holders could be re-used for legacy holders. For this reason I will likely vote against the creation of such a special contract option at the AGM. Nor do I see the purpose of section 2.5 «When there are obstacles for 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4», as section 2.6 «No relationship» seems to cover this case. Perhaps it's only my imagination being limited, but the only likely "obstacle" I can envision here is that the resource holder cannot produce adequate proof of ownership, and in that case section 2.6 ("the status quo, but no more") seems like the the most reasonable way to proceed. I'd certainly be opposed to the RIPE NCC unilaterally having to "confirm" such unproved ownership, e.g., by providing certification services, in the same way as if ownership was properly proven according to the provisions in sections 2.1 through 2.4. That said, the Impact Analysis seems to me to say that section 2.5 would be implemented in pretty much the same way as section 2.6, so I suppose there is no real cause for concern here even though the policy text itself makes me somewhat uneasy. So in summary, while I would have preferred to see sections 2.4 and 2.5 be removed completely, I consider the proposal as a whole to provide a net benefit. Therefore: Support. Tore (a RIPE NCC member who holds no legacy resources)

1 1

2012-07 Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders
by JÁKÓ András 03 Nov '13

03 Nov '13

Dear Colleagues, I support proposal 2012-07's adoption as a RIPE policy. Thanks for the work of the authors! András

1 0

Asking Used IPs Monitoring Methods
by Jahangir Asadi 02 Nov '13

02 Nov '13

Dear Sir or Madam I have some customers who I have dedicated high band width a wide ranges of IPv4 addresses to them. Because of lack of IPv4, I would like to see that how many IPs they are using. It would be grateful if you tell me how can I do this and what soft ware I have to use to monitor the used IPs. I would like to thank you in advance and I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Regards. Jahangir Asadi Network Manager of Padidar Information Technology (Your LIR Member and the owner of AS198357)

1 0