- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Ciprian Nica 24 Oct '16

24 Oct '16

Hi, I've sent this only to Marco instead of replying to the list. Please see my comments below. Ciprian On Monday, October 17, 2016, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > I think it would be useful to list on the statistics also the broker that > facilitated the transfer. That might be of interest to the community and I > think the NCC should revise the transfer agreement template in order to be > able to mention the broker and also to publish it's name on the transfer > statistics page. Also the broker should be allowed to communicate with RIPE > and pass information on behalf of the customers during the transfer process. > > There is also a cosmetic thing that I don't know if it needs be mentioned > in policy in order to be implemented. The netname of the allocation keeps > the original allocation date in it's name which can be confusing although > there's the new "created" attribute. > > For example, the subnet 128.0.52.0/24 was transferred on 14/10/2016 and > it was part of an allocation with netname EU-JM-20120914. The new > allocation has netname ES-SISTEC-20120914. > > If the date is no longer relevant in a netname then I think it should be > simply ES-SISTEC, otherwise it can be ES-SISTEC-20161014 > > Ciprian > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 4:08 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt(a)ripe.net > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','mschmidt(a)ripe.net');>> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> The draft documents for version 4.0 of the policy proposal 2015-04, "RIPE >> Resource Transfer Policies" have now been published, along with an impact >> analysis conducted by the RIPE NCC. >> >> The goal of this proposal is to create a single document with all >> relevant information regarding the transfer of Internet number resources. >> >> Some of the differences from version 3.0 include: >> >> - Adding a reference in all related allocation and assignment policies to >> the new transfer policy document >> - Clarification in the policy text and policy summary regarding transfers >> due to a change in the organisation’s business (such as a merger or >> acquisition) >> >> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04 >> >> And the draft documents at: >> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-04/draft >> >> We encourage you to read the draft document and send any comments to < >> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net');>> before 26 >> October 2016. >> >> Regards >> >> Marco Schmidt >> Policy Development Officer >> RIPE NCC >> >> Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum >> >> >

6 19

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Plesa Niculae 23 Oct '16

23 Oct '16

> On 20 Oct 2016, at 10:42, Plesa Niculae <niculae(a)plesa.ro> wrote: > > Hi Steffann, > > I strongly believe that we should have this conversation public. You switch it to private, for the reason I don’t understand, because we have nothing to hide and nobody to protect, I kindly ask you to make it public. > Why are you tell me that I make an attack? Attack on who? Attack or defend a member that was in the cross fire of chairs & friends? Please read all the messages and you will see that Ciprian was under attack, he was the one first receiving insults and fight back only after. > > My answers to your comments are as follows: > > - the facts are that Gert got IPs from the last /8 just 2 weeks before he did the merger and he also keeps a /22 out of the last /8 for over 2 years without being announced. This shows that he got the IPs even if he didn't actually need them. This is not against the policies but it’s at least immoral. > > - he compared actions not people and telling somebody to shut up is a severe offence. I saw some do not want to be democratic and civilised but I didn’t expect group leaders to support such an authoritarian attitude. > > - I understand how the policy works. I don’t understand when open for discussion means “praise us and our ideas and shut up if you have anything to say against it as we don't care about your opinions"! > > I hope I was clear and straight with the explanations of my intervention. I have no other reasons than democracy, justice and common sense. I can’t look and do nothing when I saw somebody not treated correct because he had a different opinion than the leaders. > > Best Regards, > Niculae Plesa > > >> On 19 Oct 2016, at 22:27, Sander Steffann <sander(a)steffann.nl> wrote: >> >> Hello Plesa, >> >> Replying off-list because I don't want to drag this out any further. >> >>> I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised. >> >> What facts? That one of the working group chairs works at an ISP and has merged with another ISP? There was nothing to discuss there, and the baseless allegations made by Ciprian were not worth responding to. Gert kindly responded anyway, and there is nothing more to discuss. >> >>> Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks bullshit and nobody complain about that language! >> >> I'm sorry, but calling an argument bullshit vs using very offensive language like calling people Nazi's, comparing people to Hitler etc are in completely different leagues. Telling someone to shut up is not polite, but it's completely understandable after the abhorrent language used by Ciprian. >> >>> So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of speaking is I N C O R R E C T ! >> >> Comparing people to Hitler and Nazi's is more than colourful language and figures of speech. Ciprian apparently understood that, as he has publicly apologised. >> >> Now, let's discuss policy again, without hateful language, insults and allegations. >> >>> I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian, Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up. >> >> Don't worry, those voices have been heard. >> >>> I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing the existing policy. >> >> Noted. >> >>> By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient quorum raises a HUGE question mark. >> >> It was Ciprian making the attacks. And now you apparently. This end right now. These baseless accusations against proposers and chairs are unacceptable. The company that Gert works for has merged with another company, nothing more. I personally have never sold or bought address space at all. This "business in transferring IPs" of the chairs exists only in your imagination. Stop these allegations. >> >> From your comments it is clear that you don't understand how policy development works in RIPE: >> >> - someone from the community makes a proposal >> - the working group chairs have no stake in the proposal >> - the RIPE Policy Development Process is how we handle such proposals >> - there are clearly defined discussion and review phases for debate >> - decision making is based on rough consensus, not "quorum" >> - there is a proper appeals procedure if you think the chairs have made a wrong decision >> >> And that's all. >> Sander >> >

2 1

Thank you to the chairs
by Richard Hartmann 22 Oct '16

22 Oct '16

Dear chairs, as it's all too easy to forget the amount of work that some people dedicate to keeping their particular corners of the Internet sane and cleant, I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank you for your work. Thank you. Enjoy your wooly-headed selfs next week, Richard

1 0

2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Andrew de la Haye 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear Peter, > [from the impact assessmant] > > Returned IPv4 addresses from LIRs and End Users and addresses received > from IANA's recovered pool are currently added to the RIPE NCC's > available IPv4 pool. >If this proposal is accepted, legacy resources > that have been handed over to the RIPE NCC will also be added to the > available pool. Currently, the RIPE NCC >holds a total of ten /24 IPv4 > legacy resources. > > With apologies for lack of research; under what policy was this space > "accepted" > and not marked for return to IANA? There is no policy to give us guidance on what to do with received legacy space. However, the RIPE NCC has previously taken the initiative and returned address space to IANA on two separate occasions: 22 May 2012 https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/ripe-ncc-returns-legac… 22 April 2014 https://www.ripe.net/publications/news/announcements/legacy-ipv4-address-sp… More recently, we have kept this address space separate and have not added it to our available pool. Kind regards Andrew de la Haye Chief Operations Officer RIPE NCC

2 1

Fwd: Re: Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
by Elvis Daniel Velea 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear Sander, list, below is an e-mail sent on 8/29 which did not make it to the list. Dear RIPE NCC admins - please check and help me understand why the message forwarded below did not make it to the mailing list as the google mail server ( that is used to host my @velea.eu private e-mail address) shows it as delivered (in the Sent folder) and I did receive the (BCC'ed copy). - please note, I am hiding the IP address and the from host in the headers below with '*x*'. If you need these details, please send me a message privately and I will share the IP address and even the name of my workstation. Sander, please take this message into account as well. I hope/think that the message below could make a difference. I am sorry for reacting so late, I did not know that my message did not make it to the list until I saw Sander's message with the summary. Regards, Elvis -------- Forwarded Message -------- Return-Path: <elvis(a)velea.eu> Received: from *x* ([*x.x.x.x*]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id i80sm14433191wmf.11.2016.08.29.10.09.38 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 10:09:38 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: elvis(a)velea.eu Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED References: <c988893b-d73d-4879-07b8-53ba50f4cfb5(a)ripe.net> <0a0dcd8a-a685-ed25-6837-0d807c370c21(a)velder.li> <57A31AAE.6060305(a)ripn.net> <m21t24zt1j.wl%randy(a)psg.com> <20160804113710.GJ79185(a)Space.Net> <m2y44cycc4.wl%randy(a)psg.com> <20160804121033.GK79185(a)Space.Net> <b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869(a)ripe.net> To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu> Message-ID: <48d42760-80dc-2e37-a436-e5ff46de00a3(a)velea.eu> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:09:37 +0300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869(a)ripe.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi everyone, On 8/5/16 4:41 PM, Ingrid Wijte wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > >>>> Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was >>>> originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller fragments >>>> in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - so the /14 >>>> won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics. >>> lemme see if i get this. to have the owner registration correct, some >>> address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple IRs, thus >>> fragmenting routing? i like correct registration, but the commons has >>> become pretty polluted. > > The main issue that we (the WG and the RIPE NCC) are trying to resolve > is the lack of clarity around the status and rights of these > assignments. It’s not necessarily the case that the End User > registration is incorrect. In many cases LIRs have put a lot of effort > into keeping this information up to date. I believe that since these were PI assignments - the holdership/ownership/call-it-whatever of the IP addresses stays with the company to which this IP block was registered - the PI holder. If the holder of the PI assignment agrees with the change of the block from ASSIGNED PI to PA, that will mean they are giving up on their right to hold/transfer the PI block. I think the main issue here is: who owns the rights of these IP addresses? If it's the LIR (because it was an allocation) - then they could kick the end-user out at any time. If it's the end-user - well, they should sign maintenance agreements as every PI holder and get those PIs under the same rules as everyone else's. I know of at least a few cases where the end-users have requested a PI assignment and have received one. However, some of them have received the PI assignments (approved by the RIPE NCC) from an ALLOCATED PI block while others have received them directly from the RIPE NCC. In both cases, the only one communicating with the RIPE NCC was the LIR. The end-users had no idea of the difference between the two PI blocks. That is why I believe that the NCC should talk to every PI holder from those PI/unspecified allocations and see if they - the end-users - the holders of the IP addresses - want to have the PI sponsored by an LIR (and therefore sign a maintenance agreement) or if they may want the IP block to be transferred to the LIR holding the large allocation (and transformed into ASSIGNED PA). The first step - talking to the allocation holder (the LIR) - is logical. However, if you only talk to the LIR you will only see one side of the story. It should be, I believe, the end-user that should decide whether they give up on their right to those IPs which now have become assets and are worth money. Therefore, I think that the RIPE NCC should talk to every single company holding a PI assignment from an ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED block and give them the option to give up on the maintenance of the IPs (and the right to transfer/sell) and transform them into ASSIGNED PA, or become a PI user - like all the others in the world - and sign a maintenance agreement with a LIR (and have the €50/year associated cost). regards, elvis

2 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Richard Hartmann 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear all, I support this proposal. I would once again urge that the default view in the PDP process should be diffs. While I could find diffs between proposal versions on the PDP site, there was no obvious way to diff current text against current proposal version. Richard

5 7

2016-03 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)
by Plesa Niculae 20 Oct '16

20 Oct '16

Dear all, I saw a lot of members and/or staff friends supporting one another in judging Ciprian metaphors, hyperbolas and comparisons and no one answering to the FACTS presented by him, and to the real life experienced problems that he raised. Everybody was disgusted when hearing about Hitler, Nazi or Camps and nobody has noticed that Ciprian only answers to disgusting words addressed to him, like: SHUT-UP! Somebody said to Aleksey this morning that he speaks bullshit and nobody complain about that language! So it became obvious for me that friends from/of OUR organisation stick together in shutting down everybody else with another opinion, fighting back on the figures of speech, not on the essence of the problems. I almost feel obliged to take a stand and to warn everybody that what happens with cross firing Ciprian for no other real reason than his colourful way of speaking is I N C O R R E C T ! I feel also obliged to thank very much to the ones not blinded by the fury attacks of the policy change initiators on the ones with different opinions than theirs and only focused on the real matters that Aleksey, Ciprian, Patrick, Daniel, Radu-Adrian, Lu and others raised up. I have to say that I am totally agree with the real and important problems of the policy raised by Ciprian and other members. I am against changing the existing policy. By attacking Ciprian you will not solve the problems of the policy and by ignoring the fact that the wg chairs have businesses in which they use the current policy in transferring IPs and after that they want to modify the policy as soon as possible and with insufficient debates and insufficient quorum raises a HUGE question mark. Best Regards, Niculae Plesa

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] unacceptable conduct and ad-hominem attacks
by Ciprian Nica 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Jim Reid <jim(a)rfc1035.com> wrote: > > > On 19 Oct 2016, at 12:34, Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> wrote: > > > > But my problem at this point is not with an idea being right or wrong > but with the fact that you are not a fair arbitrer. > > In your (utterly flawed) opinion. > > I respect everyone's opinion and especially yours. > I’m fairly sure the overwhelming majority of the people of this list have > absolute confidence in the integrity of the WG’s co-chairs. If you think > you can do better, feel free to stand the next time the appointment process > runs. > > I never care about the majority and I don't think that should be a standard. Time has proven that sometimes majorities are wrong. > > As a WG Chair my opinion is that you should not take sides. > > There is no evidence whatsoever to support your claim that Gert (or > Sander) are “taking sides”. > Supporting an idea and ignoring someone based on personal feelings means taking sides. > > It's a simple question from a member of the community to one of the WG > Chairs: did you abuse the last /8 or not ? Do you consider yourself a > neutral arbitrer or not ? Do you consider yourself the one that should be > judging others ? > > Here’s a simple rhetorical question for you. Do you think making > unjustified ad-hominem attacks and insults like the above will encourage > support for your position on this policy proposal? > > Your behaviour here is unacceptable and way, way, way out of line. > > With power comes responsibility. And yes, we should question our "leaders" all the time. This is not something wrong, it's helpful for keeping the balance. > > Or is it your "job" to shut the voices that are not according to your > interests ? > > No. That’s *my* job. :-) > > Until you apologise and learn how to conduct yourself properly on this > list, Ciprian SHUT UP. Unsubscribe, shut up, go away... Next time you'll send me to a concentration camp ? No I WILL NOT SHUT UP ! I will always express my opinion even if I'm the only one in the world supporting it. A great romanian said that the best definition of democracy is "I will fight till my last drop of blood so you will have the right to disagree with me". I know many don't like it and prefer to solve matters by putting the fist into minority's mouth. Who'll be next in line to be "killed" tomorrow ? Ciprian

3 4

2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies)
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

Dear colleagues, Regarding the [address-policy-wg] 2015-04 New Version and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE Resource Transfer Policies): The supposed purpose of the policy was to organise more efficiently, in a single document, the rules regarding transfer of resources but it brings a restriction which has not been properly analysed and debated. In my opinion there are many cases when two ISPs would merge. Due to the restructuring after the merger it is likely that the IPs could be used more efficiently and the resulting company would have spare resources that could be transferred like one of the AS numbers and maybe some IPs. If both companies have received the IPs and AS numbers many years ago, why should they not be able to transfer the resulting unused resources after the merger ? There is no logical point in that. Maybe there would not result some unused IPs but at least there is a 100% certainty that one of the AS numbers would become useless. This policy would force the company to keep it for 24 months just because they did a merger ? In today’s market it's quite common that smaller ISPs get acquired by larger ones and the policy would impose some restrictions which makes no sense. I have more observations regarding other non-sense and incorrect terms of the proposed policy, but first I really want to see if Marco, together with the RIPE team, really want to discuss and make modifications according the general good and common sense or everybody wants to pass this policy, like most of them, with no real answers to the problems raised. We will pass this policy in fanfare sounds, without any modifications, like the most of the past ones, or we will look seriously at members observations and change the policy accordingly? Best Regards Niculae Plesa

4 3

niculae@plesa.ro
by Plesa Niculae 19 Oct '16

19 Oct '16

niculae(a)plesa.ro

1 0