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

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

Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
by Lu Heng 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Ciprian: I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up 100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality here and everybody have to deal with it. And for the /22, I fully support the policy and I believe such abuse should not happen. and such abuse practically turns the last /8 policy useless. If we should allow such abuse then why shouldn't we just completely deplete the IPv4 instead of reserving the last /8. One thing do worries me though, by doing a simple math: (2000+1600+1600)/1000=5.2Euro/IP in cost, if future IP price reaches 10 Euro or up, we might still not able to stop such abuse, unless we make the last /22 totally untransferable. Just my two cents. With regards. Lu On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, <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 > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Garry Glendown) > 2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Opteamax GmbH) > 4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Tore Anderson) > 5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > 6. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published > (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) > (Ciprian Nica) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200 > From: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com> > To: 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: <55774365.9050801(a)nethinks.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Guten Tag, > > We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > > is not equal to solving the problem. > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > available anymore ... > > -garry > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, 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: <5577442D.7060903(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > Hi, > > > On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > > >>>> - help the last /8 pool become even larger > >>> Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of > >>> addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about > policies > >>> cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job > >>> well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are > >>> still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... > >> Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions > >> that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will > >> push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be > >> IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many > >> will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a > decision. > > OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting > > yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 > > deployment. > > As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 > exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass > to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think > it's usefull to elaborate on that. > > >> Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported > >> by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In > >> a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there > >> would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from > >> those who don't use them, that would really help. > > But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to > > reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just > > by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go > away. > > Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of > previous policies. > > I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed > everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. > I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. > > As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help > conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by > adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to > polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. > > Ciprian Nica > IP Broker Ltd. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200 > From: Opteamax GmbH <ripe(a)opteamax.de> > To: 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: <55774531.9050009(a)opteamax.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > > Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > > I'll fully support it. > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > not being really used for a while. > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > Best regards > > -- > 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: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200 > From: Tore Anderson <tore(a)fud.no> > To: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > Cc: Gert Doering <gert(a)space.net>, 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: <20150609215957.407aba88(a)envy.fud.no> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi Ciprian, > > * Ciprian Nica > > > What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the > > community will benefit from it or some small group of people. > > > > To summarize the effects will be : > > - higher membership fees > > Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the > membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. > > [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs > [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 > > The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining > in order to make use of the ?last /8 policy?. Even if we managed to > stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would > not reverse this trend. > > Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay > the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that > means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to > increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much > better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs > and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to > *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep > paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as > possible. > > > What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? > > The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? > > The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool has > been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. > > [4] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovere… > > This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, > and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it > (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is > not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any > significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). > > So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue > to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's ?last /8? pool > in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start > seeing ?last /8? pool actually start to drain soon. > > For what it's worth, since the first ?last /8? allocation was made 995 > days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has > been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on > the other hand only 425,625 addresses. > > So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a > valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten > years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus > whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. > > Tore > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300 > From: Ciprian Nica <office(a)ip-broker.uk> > To: Garry Glendown <garry(a)nethinks.com>, 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: <557745F7.8060102(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get > affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their > investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy > will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote: > > Guten Tag, > >> We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder > >> is not equal to solving the problem. > > _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set > > on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in > > order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations > > that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is > > either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at > > least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), > > or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be > > available anymore ... > > > > -garry > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +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 (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 > Allocations) > Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801(a)ip-broker.uk> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Hi Jens, > > I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was > announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that > only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought > something is wrong. > > I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs > but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart > enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. > > If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking > back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s > should be somehow persuaded to give them back. > > 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. > > 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. > > UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs > and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the > last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the > elefants. > > Ciprian > > On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote: > > > > On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:> > >> Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and > >> I'll fully support it. > > > > The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually > > refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the > RIPE-Pool. > > > > The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" > > of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying > > why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal > > would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one > > hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really > > needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if > > that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is > > not being really used for a while. > > > > Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not > > publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd > > have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the > > routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public > > IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 > > with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many > > of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a > > blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets. > > > > ... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"? > > > > Sorry, could not resist to point on that. > > > > Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and > > raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when > > they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless. > > > > Best regards > > > > > > End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20 > ************************************************* > --

1 0

2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published be mailing list
by Amir Mohsen 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve the problem

1 0

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by Gerald K. 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

You're right, I meant "we from AS20783". I thought this was clear. -- Gerald (AS20783) Am 09.06.2015 um 15:28 schrieb Vladimir Andreev: > Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all". > > 09.06.2015, 16:26, "Gerald K." <gerald(a)ax.tc>: >> After all the pros and cons - we support 2015-01! >> >> -- >> Gerald (AS20783) >> >> Am 11.05.2015 um 13:43 schrieb Marco Schmidt: >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer >>> Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published. >>> >>> The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published. >>> >>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 >>> >>> and the draft document at: >>> >>> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft >>> >>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to >>> address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Marco Schmidt >>> Policy Development Officer >>> RIPE NCC > > -- > With best regards, Vladimir Andreev > General director, QuickSoft LLC > Tel: +7 903 1750503 >

1 0

FW: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
by poty＠iiat.ru 09 Jun '15

09 Jun '15

Hi, I'm completely for the proposal and think that it could bring some initial intentions in place with reality. +1 Regards, Vladislav Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Andre Keller Sent: Monday, May 11, 2015 4:31 PM To: 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) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to > address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André

1 0