Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
        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@ripe.net

You can reach the person managing the list at
        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: 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@nethinks.com>
To: address-policy-wg@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@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@ip-broker.uk>
To: Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg@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@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@opteamax.de>
To: address-policy-wg@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@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@opteamax.de

HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989



------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
To: Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk>
Cc: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>, address-policy-wg@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@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-recovered-address-space.xhtml

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@ip-broker.uk>
To: Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg@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@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@ip-broker.uk>
To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe@opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg@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@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
*************************************************