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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Borhan Habibi 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem -1 to this proposal

15 35

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 Conflict of Interests
by Callum Stuart 11 Jun '15

11 Jun '15

Hello, One people named WW circulated the following info privately to a large group of people in ripe region. can you swear that there was no conflict of interests ? compared with the FIFA corruption and collapse, how about we involves the investigation by FBI or Gov authority? maybe only through this way, the truth can be disclosed to the PUBLIC. Elvis, who used to work in RIPE from Nov, 2007 to May 2013, has conspired with his countryman and allocated plenty of RIPE IPv4 blocks to their own registered shell companies without employees. Elvis established its brokerage company as soon as he resigned from RIPE and has sold out IPv4 blocks that he had reserved into his “own account” ( one of the sale was to Saudi Telecommunication and the sale price is around 7US). This is not just an ethics problem here and he is committing the CRIME! Ironically, it will so easy to become rich almost in one night by doing what Elvis has done. How can RIPE just turn a blind eye on his committed Crime ? Elvis has taken the advantage of his role as the IPRA ( he knows better about what IP values and the policy loopholes than the others ) and purposely allocated plenty of IPv4 blocks to his own shell for the speculation. Congrats to Elvis, he has succeeded in becoming a millionaire by committing crime! Shame on those who do nothing to stop the crime. Cobalt IT (Evolva) same position like Elvis.. at same company.. See the evidences including ( company registration info, resources, linkedin profiles etc) in the attachment. On Wednesday, June 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-request@ripe.net) > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg-owner@ripe.net) > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: RIPE != RIPE NCC (Nick Hilliard) > 2. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Elvis Daniel Velea) > 3. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Silvia Hagen) > 4. Re: Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > (Hannigan, Martin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:03:03 +0100 > From: Nick Hilliard <nick(a)inex.ie (mailto:nick@inex.ie)> > To: Randy Bush <randy(a)psg.com (mailto:randy@psg.com)>, Sascha Luck <apwg(a)c4inet.net (mailto:apwg@c4inet.net)> > Cc: RIPE address policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] RIPE != RIPE NCC > Message-ID: <55784397.1050704(a)inex.ie (mailto:55784397.1050704@inex.ie)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > On 10/06/2015 14:03, Randy Bush wrote: > > what is missing here is that, if only LIRs decided policy, a few > > thousand folk (likely 10 people on a mailing list), would decide policy > > affecting millions internet users. > > > > > ~980m. > > Nick > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:16:19 +0300 > From: Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)> > To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <557846B3.1010009(a)velea.eu (mailto:557846B3.1010009@velea.eu)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked > you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday > telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to > make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks > against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just making > > > accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved > > > this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final decision > > > about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. I > > only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the scene > > but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong > assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression > that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all > the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because > their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have > if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false > assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was > unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members > may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE > NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and > I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation > received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation > (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have > received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, > you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the > tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including > the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can > not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you > would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict > others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs > have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were > at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you > decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice > any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me > (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs > from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in reality, I > > > have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving the > > requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that > found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as > with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you > by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is > helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict > of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one > single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you > started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the > allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know > (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no > single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second > IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise > you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have > wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly > or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity > at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind > of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:31 +0000 > From: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> > To: "elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)" <elvis(a)velea.eu (mailto:elvis@velea.eu)>, "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" > <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <F1D4404E5E6C614EB9D3083F4D15A7E7C84FB0@hex02> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > Silvia > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > Hi Ciprian, > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > [...] > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > the requests). > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > and before that you said: > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > only to then say: > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > Ciprian > /elvis > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:56:16 +0000 > From: "Hannigan, Martin" <marty(a)akamai.com (mailto:marty@akamai.com)> > To: Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net)> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask > for the 3rd time) > Message-ID: <E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7(a)akamai.com (mailto:E0A86D2C-902D-43DE-8754-42CF14983ED7@akamai.com)> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > It would be great if the combatants can move the theatre of warfare operations to their personal mailboxes. > > Best, > > -M< > > > > > On Jun 10, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Silvia Hagen <silvia.hagen(a)sunny.ch (mailto:silvia.hagen@sunny.ch)> wrote: > > > > This thread is like a great piece of comedy, thanks for entertainment > > > > Silvia > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Elvis Daniel Velea > > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 16:16 > > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net (mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net) > > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] Personal attacks - please stop (i ask for the 3rd time) > > > > Hi Ciprian, > > > > > so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. > > > > Calling my proposal a mistake is very rude from you and I already asked you to stop being rude, before you started the thread below. > > > > Even though I already responded to a message you have sent yesterday telling you that it's not nice what you are doing, you have continued to make false accusations and wrongfully interpret what others have said. > > Curious though, all the wrong interpretations were just to start attacks against me... > > > > On 10/06/15 14:39, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > [...] > > > > Please provide evidence for following claim, otherwise you are just > > > > making accusation without any support evidence. > > > > > > > > "He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even > > > > approved this last-second allocation. " > > > > > > > > And the reality is, Elvis has never on the position to make final > > > > decision about our allocation. > > > > > > > > > > You told us that. I can't know what happened during that allocations. > > > I only was refering to what you told us, that Elvis was the one that > > > approved your allocations. Maybe you know what happens behind the > > > scene but that should also bring some questions. > > > > > > > You, intentionally, misunderstood what Lu said and used your wrong assumptions to start an attack against me. I was under the impression that you are better than this but it seems you are not better than all the others that have been attacking me over this policy proposal because their 'business' was affected. I wonder what kind of business you have if you publicly attack persons and companies relying on your own false assumptions. > > > > > > What Lu said was that during the evaluation of his requests, he was unhappy that I was very strict. He, as well as other RIPE NCC Members may have seen me as a very strict person when I was working at the RIPE NCC. That was only because I always thrive to be very good at my job and I have always verified (maybe too much) in depth all the documentation received from LIRs. Just as you have received the /28 IPv6 allocation (for your extremely large IPv6 deployment) some LIRs may have have received large IPv4 allocations when these were justified. > > If you are complaining that your request got reduced from /13 to a /14, you should have complained at that time, you should have used all the tools you had if you think at that time the IPRAs were wrong - including the last option, request the arbiters to evaluate your request. You can not come back 3-4 years later to say, I could have received more if you would have been less strict (and assume that we have been less strict others), especially because you have no idea how strict the NCC IPRAs have been with Lu. > > > > Ciprian, if you really wanted to contribute to this proposal, you were at the RIPE Meetings where this issue was discussed - however, you decided that the AP-WG is not worth of your effort and you did not voice any opinion. > > Instead, you waited until the last day to start an attack against me (the proposer) and against some others that you feel 'received more IPs from the RIPE NCC than you' before the run-out in 2012. > > > > [...] > > > > Again, you are making false statement without any evidence, in > > > > reality, I have never done any business with Elvis now and past. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know anything about any relation that might be between you and > > > Elvis. You pointed him out as the one giving you the IPs (approving > > > the requests). > > > > > > > > > Lu never pointed out that I 'gave' him the IPs. He actually said that found me to be 'unfriendly' - while actually I was just strict, just as with all the other requests I evaluated in the 6 years spent at the NCC. > > > > and before that you said: > > > > > It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by the same person that has initiated this proposal. > > > > only to then say: > > > > > Yes, a few years ago he approved your allocations and now he is helping you sell the IPs. > > > Obviously he only dreams about world peace and there is no conflict of interests here. > > > > > > > > > You know, and have been aware of this information for years, that one single IPRA could not approve /16 or larger allocations. However, you started to attack me implying that I have helped Lu receive the allocations and that then I tried to help him sell them. Plus, you know (and Andrea Cima also reminded you in case you had forgotten) that no single IPRA could approve a /15 or larger allocation without a second IPRA's evaluation and management and senior management approval. > > > > I really do not know what happened to you, Ciprian. But I would advise you to take a step or two back and look at all the things you have wrongfully interpreted from others' mails. You can contact me directly or Andrea Cima (RS Manager) if you have any questions about my activity at the RIPE NCC and stop talking about conflict of interests or all kind of conspiracy theories where there is none. > > > > I await your apology for all the badmouthing over the past two days. > > Again, this was totally unexpected from you. > > > > > > Ciprian > > /elvis > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 35 > ************************************************* > >

4 4

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by dan 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Only people who would object are those who wana exploit the system! If i did this in 1995 > i would be loaded! I still have my 'rose tinted glasses on' Feeling old! RIPE.. this needs to stop! Danial Subhani Pro-Net Internet Services Ltd <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled(a)gmail.com> </div><div>Date:10/06/2015 17:56 (GMT+00:00) </div><div>To: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> </div><div>Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published </div><div> </div>On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> wrote: Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. That's true, but _right now_, he is too late. If there is a new discussion phase, he can voice his opinions then. It's also possible for him to launch his _own_ proposal. -- Jan

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. Ripe free ips number is growing but you make it harder to get?! You are against ripe members? Not speakeing anout 185.x right now. Its globaly. Why to make it harder? The policy you try to applay will not help you goal. You should assist and try to help people to get ips that they need for business if ripe have them with some faer puporse. Current ip ranges are very small and may not care on big owners who use lot of ip networs like /16 /15 and etc. Ripe should take more care on database and better take back ips that were get from ripe somehow with strange puporses. I dont see any good idea here. It will even not help one companies to help other companies to arrange needed ip amount. If you think you should resist ip redistrebution and interfere geting ips legaly from ripe may be better lets stop IP distribution at all and close ripe? Ripe should help up distribution. Its the goal of ripe. Ever if you read the propousal puporse you will undersnand that it will not help, even if it happen nothing strange will happen. But the result that will be published later will confirm that you where wrong. Please give some days for discussion if that possible. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Sebastian Wiesinger <sebastian(a)karotte.org> Дата: 10.06.2015 16:12 (GMT+02:00) Кому: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published * ripe(a)ntx.ru <ripe(a)ntx.ru> [2015-06-10 15:00]: > Greetings! Hello, the discussion phase ended yesterday so this will not be put into consideration. > "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will > not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies > rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not > important and not against other members or people. The goal is to make it harder to abuse the last-/8 policy. This will help. > In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult > some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help > people and companies. So you will get opposite result. In what way will it make things more difficult? The goal - again - is to stop the abuse of a policy that was made to help newcomers to enter the market. > I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive > doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we > need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not > against it! Which community are you talking about? Who is this hurting and how? > We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours > later we have today database update and can show fresh information. > Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. > > We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. You're not saying what your analytics are about but even so, the discussion phase is over... Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

4 5

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

I got information from some persons from this emailing list that 185 will end up in 3 month and links to ripe stats. Its not correct. I show the lir reg stats and blocks allocations. Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 2013 1844 1888256 12% 83% 14091264 2014 2472 2537472 16% 67% 11553792 2015 1154 1202176 8% 59% 10351616 Total: 6249 6425600 39% 61% 10351616 Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012-9 195 199680 1.19% 98.81% 16577536 2012-10 212 217088 1.29% 97.52% 16360448 2012-11 208 212992 1.27% 96.25% 16147456 2012-12 164 167936 1% 95.25% 15979520 2013-1 196 200704 1.2% 94.05% 15778816 2013-2 145 148480 0.89% 93.16% 15630336 2013-3 154 157696 0.94% 92.22% 15472640 2013-4 167 171008 1.02% 91.2% 15301632 2013-5 144 147456 0.88% 90.32% 15154176 2013-6 136 139264 0.83% 89.49% 15014912 2013-7 156 159744 0.95% 88.54% 14855168 2013-8 136 139264 0.83% 87.71% 14715904 2013-9 129 132096 0.79% 86.92% 14583808 2013-10 188 192512 1.15% 85.77% 14391296 2013-11 144 147456 0.88% 84.89% 14243840 2013-12 149 152576 0.91% 83.98% 14091264 2014-1 145 148480 0.89% 83.09% 13942784 2014-2 170 174080 1.04% 82.05% 13768704 2014-3 192 196608 1.17% 80.88% 13572096 2014-4 240 245760 1.46% 79.42% 13326336 2014-5 205 209920 1.25% 78.17% 13116416 2014-6 188 193536 1.15% 77.02% 12922880 2014-7 209 214016 1.28% 75.74% 12708864 2014-8 186 190464 1.14% 74.6% 12518400 2014-9 190 195584 1.17% 73.43% 12322816 2014-10 249 254976 1.52% 71.91% 12067840 2014-11 238 243712 1.45% 70.46% 11824128 2014-12 260 270336 1.61% 68.85% 11553792 2015-1 228 235520 1.4% 67.45% 11318272 2015-2 237 242688 1.45% 66% 11075584 2015-3 302 316416 1.89% 64.11% 10759168 2015-4 290 299008 1.78% 62.33% 10460160 2015-5 97 108544 0.65% 61.68% 10351616 Please take a view. You can see that in 2015 approx the same amount of ips will be allocated to new lirs. And ips is enought for some years! Anycase free ips at ripe are growing. So ripe should make the ip usage price (lir fees less) or give more IPs (lets say 2048) to one lir and help people work but not make market from ips. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung -------- Исходное сообщение -------- От: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> Дата: 10.06.2015 19:04 (GMT+02:00) Кому: RIPE Address Policy WG <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> Тема: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi! According to PDP it's possibly to change any proposal's state to "Discussion" or "Withdraw" after "Review" phase. 10.06.2015, 18:59, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled(a)gmail.com>:On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:38 PM, ripe(a)ntx.ru <ripe(a)ntx.ru> wrote: Greetings again, Sorry that I joined this discussion with delay, but as i was found a lot of people didnt get notified or get in touch with this discussion as myself. Currently I discuss this things at ENOG9 with people. I would like to ask you some more days for discussion becouse a lot of people are busy at enog9 and some europe meetings but good idea to wait for their opinion too. ... Please give some days for discussion if that possible. You are, regrettably, too late. You have already had nearly four months since the policy change proposal was announced: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/policy-announce/2015-February/00044… Just like I had to face that I missed a bunch of decisions before I joined this mailing list, you have to face that you missed the boat on this one, sorry.-- Jan -- With best regards, Vladimir AndreevGeneral director, QuickSoft LLCTel: +7 903 1750503

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Lu Heng 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Ciprian: Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide their identity. So I will responds: Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of three allocation you have mentioned. *"* *Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> - allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 <http://5.132.0.0/16> - allocated on 02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 <http://5.224.0.0/15> - allocated on 06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out formillions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders ofthe last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands."* My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years, while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then, elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was according to the policy. Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then bribe people. You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it in a public space. And to best of my knowledge, RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please help to clarify). More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example). Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at personal level again. Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this to the community because this is not the first time personally attack happening here(and not just to me and my company). On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, <address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net> wrote: > Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > address-policy-wg-request(a)ripe.net > > You can reach the person managing the list at > address-policy-wg-owner(a)ripe.net > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Carsten Schiefner) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (LIR (BIT I 5)) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Mikael Abrahamsson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200 > From: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs(a)schiefner.de> > To: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir(a)quick-soft.net> > Cc: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705(a)schiefner.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Dear Vladimir, > > On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote: > > You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea. > > first of all, I am not angry. > > I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these > see-through non-arguments. > > Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt > to blurr this discussion. > > Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to > a proposal and objecting to it. > > In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the > proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up > with. > > In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear > reasons for it. > > It is really that simple. > > > P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch > > Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support > > his statements. > > I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the > fuzz. > > Thanks and best, > > -C. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi, > > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the > people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut. > > Let me give you an example: > > - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012 > - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012 > - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012 > > All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that > time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6 > deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17 > and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for > such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it). > > Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is > now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for > millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of > the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC > noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything > about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I > said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll > have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in > Netherlands. > > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to > set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. > There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and > aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating > gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of > stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not > transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see > a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The > default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar > requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered > will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer > becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and > needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently > disappear. > > If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe > we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not > waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems. > > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no > positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while > the problems might become worse. > > Ciprian > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000 > From: "LIR (BIT I 5)" <LIR(a)bva.bund.de> > To: "address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net" <address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net> > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > Message-ID: > <C9593F67FE4B1342BBC009DF73251B2C8D6BFA1F(a)S01KR974.intern.dir> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi@all, > +1 for Jens > +1 for the proposal 2015-01 > Kind regards, > Carsten Br?ckner > LIR de.government > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Im > Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38 > An: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published > > Hi Borhan, > Hi List, > > hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while > I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now... > > Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because > I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings" > gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused > exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing > into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy > which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing > the community! > > To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change > only appear more important. > > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the > issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution. > That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger > policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at > all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person > which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from > ripe membership for the rest of their lifes. > > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set > up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There > is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition. > If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways > between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger > version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And > they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not > requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all > resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue > for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers > obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most > cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that > discussion. And all traders will silently disappear. > > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this > proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more > restrictive policy" > > Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the > community actually want something much more restrictive! > > BR Jens > > > Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h(a)gmail.com>: > >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem > > > >-1 to this proposal > > > > > > Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team > Jens Ott > > Opteamax GmbH > > Simrockstr. 4b > 53619 Rheinbreitbach > > Tel.: +49 2224 969500 > Fax: +49 2224 97691059 > Email: jo(a)opteamax.de > > HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur > Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST) > From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike(a)swm.pp.se> > To: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506100936040.9487(a)uplift.swm.pp.se> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > > use and they can't give up on it. > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > > that would be a real benefit. > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > help. > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100 > From: Tom Smyth <tom.smyth(a)wirelessconnect.eu> > To: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net> > Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net > Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact > Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: > <CAJ3iMJQ=1eL-0KoCXko1pfTUzs_jnOGCXU= > VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hi, > We @ as198988 support the proposal ... > Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions > that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin > contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for > years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. > > I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as > possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with > an ability to create backward compatible translation systems > > +1 mofos > On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert(a)space.net> wrote: > > > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote: > > > > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to > >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were > >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked > >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in > >> use and they can't give up on it. > >> > > > > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If > > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address > > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do > so. > > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this > > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the > > goodness of their heart to give addresses away. > > > > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking > >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence > >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, > >> that would be a real benefit. > >> > > > > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this > space, > > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X > amount > > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling. > > > > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more > > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up > > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing > > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M > EUR > > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people > do > > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a > > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little > > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on > this > > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a > > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them > they > > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. > So > > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free. > > > > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for > > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed > > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease > > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a > > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the > > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to > > help. > > > > -- > > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike(a)swm.pp.se > > > > >

10 18

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by ripe＠ntx.ru 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Greetings! "-1"We did a lot of analytics and do not support this idea. It will not help to reach the goal and will not help community, companies rearrange and get IPs. The transfer numbers show that 3%is not important and not against other members or people. In other case if it will be implemented it will make more difficult some things, it will make unregulated market and will not help people and companies. So you will get opposite result. I am very surprised that lot of people who discuss it positive doesnt realy work or need it. They just tell own opinion. But we need to see the numbers. And we have to work for community but not against it! I am not offen here, but I keep helping people to understand ripe rulls. We just finished own ripe database analitics and today some hours later we have today database update and can show fresh information. Ripe should care on other things much more but not here. We can give more analitics and also examples from database statistics. Yuri@NTX Отправлено с устройства Samsung

2 1

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Saeed, I oppose this proposal as it cannot stop the transfers but only delay it for 2 years for the new /22 blocks. Also transfer of IPv4 is not always equal to selling them. Regards, Arash Naderpour

3 2

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

Hi Erik, It may increase the cost or make it make less attractive, but I believe it would be just a temporary affect. Making less attractive is not a good argument to support it (to me) Regards, Arash Naderpour -----Original Message----- From: Erik Bais [mailto:erik@bais.name] Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 11:48 AM To: Arash Naderpour; 'Gert Doering' Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published Hi Arash, > "This policy proposal will not prevent organisations from setting up > one or more LIRs and hoarding the /22s. It will only add a two-year > restriction before a /22 from the last /8 can be transferred." The 24 month period will increase the cost of the 'hoarding' ... which makes it a lot less attractive to do it.. This policy change will make it a lot more expensive for the current 'abusers of the intent of the policy' to see this as a viable business model.. Regards, Erik Bais

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
by Arash Naderpour 10 Jun '15

10 Jun '15

-1 to this proposal. Regards, Arash Naderpour

4 6