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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05
by Dominik Nowacki 02 Nov '15

02 Nov '15

Hello, I think that if we are changing the policy in regards to allocations from the Last /8 we should make sure this is not abused. There are many LIRs setup solely for the purpose of getting an allocation from the last /8 to rent this space out. As this space is offered for a very low fee it is often abused and hence artificially increasing the IPv4 depletion. This should not be the case. I think the policy should allow for the subsequent allocations from the last /8, but only if the space is not only not transferred out of the LIR account in the period of 18 months AND the LIR was not renting the space from the last /8 to another entities within the last 18 months period (solely, not as part of another service). What do you think ? Kind Regards, Dominik Clouvider Limited

4 5

address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 31 Oct '15

31 Oct '15

Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

12 15

R: address-policy-wg
by Alessio Genova 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

>It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable >solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from >scratch only a few years ago. > >Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 >adoption should be the first order of business. > >Regards, > >--ck Who writes some sentence, surely knows that today IPv6 addressing in Italy is used only by Facebook, Google, Youtube and some other else, but most of sites are only reachable by IPv4. So, please, let me know how to migrate all our customers to IPv6 giving them access to the whole internet, as today, and we’ll make it. Vice versa I’m sure that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Da: Alessio Genova [mailto:alessiogenova1@gmail.com] Inviato: giovedì 29 ottobre 2015 14:02 A: 'address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net' Oggetto: address-policy-wg Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22. >From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer. There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards

4 3

New on RIPE Labs: RIPE NCC Membership Statistics Q3 2015
by Mirjam Kuehne 30 Oct '15

30 Oct '15

Dear colleagues, We look at the RIPE NCC in terms of growth, geographic distribution and IPv6 deployment. We find that recent RIPE policy changes have had an impact on membership statistics and development trends. Please find the results on RIPE Labs: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/wilhelm/ripe-ncc-membership-statistics-q3-2015 Kind regards, Mirjam Kuehne RIPE NCC

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Hello I support this proposal. If you are worry about running out of IPv4, you should stop those are registering new LIRs, transfer the IPs and close the LIR. Even 2015-01 is unable to stop them. If it is limited to those LIRs who didn't transfer any IP to other LIRs, I think it could reduce amount of unnecessary transfers. I heard a lot about this: "New entrants should have access to IPv4". I think you should say that in this way: " The new entrants should have access to the INTERNET". Don't you think the new LIRs need to run IPv6? or imagine we are in 2020 and we ran out of IPv4, what should we do? Do it now. I think we are just postpone switching to v6. -- Shahin Gharghi

17 51

Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria
by Pietro Asproni 29 Oct '15

29 Oct '15

Dear All,, proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks Regards, Pietro Asproni PA7-RIPE

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran
by Saeed Khademi 22 Oct '15

22 Oct '15

Hello everybody, I read all messages in this regard, and I think conversation is going off the road. One individual, or one LIR may talk about their own opinion regarding the proposal. Please do not extent the talk to all LIRs from Iran or any other region. and I don't think that it is wise to stamp a technical proposal with political issues. Are we talking about IPV4 and IPV6, or we are talking about how Iran is managing it's address space? Kind Regards, Saeed. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2015 5:43 PM To: Shahin Gharghi Cc: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IP addresses for Iran On 21 Oct 2015, at 14:49, Shahin Gharghi <shahin(a)gharghi.ir> wrote: >> What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. So the probem isn't getting or using address space, it's routing that space. This WG (and RIPE more generally) is not in a position to decide or enforce the peering and transit policies used by ISPs ad IXPs. >> Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > > RIPE NCC can ease the process.I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach consensus > on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions problems. I > doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas about how > this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal which > does that. > People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. > Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of > community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are > talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user > of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to > look at them. Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC.

3 3

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > I think the answer expected was to clarify (for whomever is interested) why > Iran companies can't announce IPv6. > > You can check that in RIP NCC's statistics. Whole Iran LIRs have one upstream provider (AS12880 AS48159) and it doesn't support IPv6. Also making tunnel to some brokers is illegal and blocked and if it was open, brokers don't work with Iran because of sanctions. Again, what are you talking about sanctions ? As I mentioned Iran is the > largest importer of IPv4 space and it comes from all over the region. > People should transfer money illegally to outside of Iran because we can't use SWIFT as you know. So if we transfer money and they won't transfer the IP's, there is no where to complain. (at least RIPE NCC can help in this case to ease transfers) So if we could transfer easily the number of transfers would be much more. > I'm not sure it can. It would be up to the RIPE community to reach > consensus on a policy proposal which somehow eases Iran's sanctions > problems. I doubt a policy could have that effect. If you have some ideas > about how this could be done, please share them or submit a policy proposal > which does that. > > I'll do my best to submit a proposal. > Of course Iran is part of the community. However when RIPE develops > address policies here, we are supposed to consider the interests of the > community as a whole and do the best (or least worst) for everyone. Current > policy allows Iranian LIRs to get the same sized IPv4 allocations as > everyone else. IMO they're no better off or worse off than any other LIRs > in the RIPE service region who need to get v4 space from the NCC. > > I don't say Iranian LIRs should receive bigger parts, I mean even this /22's can help them. I apologize if some of my notes are not related to this WG. -- Shahin Gharghi

1 0

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > > > > > They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. > > What's stoping Iranian LIRs getting an IPv6 allocation from the NCC? > Iran has a lot of IPv6 allocation but can't announce any. > > > Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > Solving the sanctions problem isn't within RIPE's control. > RIPE NCC can ease the process. People mentioned Iran as instance, so I explained the situation. Community has to agree that Iran and similar countries are a part of community and they can see the proposals from their own view. You are talking about making IPv4 available in future, and one of the biggest user of IPv4 in future is Iran or similar countries, so it seems we have to look at them. -- Shahin Gharghi

4 3

2015-05
by Shahin Gharghi 21 Oct '15

21 Oct '15

> > > > If RIPE runs out of IPv4 sooner it will not help switching to v6 faster. > It only means that the new entrants will have to buy the resources from > the market at prices which will be obviously higher. > And what will happen if we run out of IPv4 later? People have to pay a lot of money while there are a lot of unused IPs in the world. Don't you think that's a good business for those got a lot of IPs and didn't use them? > > Iran is a good example, as a country can be considered a relatively new > entrant. What has happened over there ? 0.05% IPv6 adoption rate > according to google stats and Iran is the #1 importing country of IPv4 > resources. > This is exactly why I'm supporting this proposal. Most of you have no idea about how bad the situation is in Iran. They need IP more than every country and they can't have even ONE IPv6. Even they can't buy IP from outside of country because of sanctions. > > I don't understand why there's still this confusion that if RIPE's pool > will be empty, many think there will be no more IPv4 available and > everyone will go the next day to IPv6. It's totally wrong. > > I agree with you but at least makes it faster. -- Shahin Gharghi

3 2