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
(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@schiefner.de>
To: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net>
Cc: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
Analysis Published
Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705@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@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
Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008@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@bva.bund.de>
To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
Analysis Published
Message-ID:
<C9593F67FE4B1342BBC009DF73251B2C8D6BFA1F@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@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@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@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@swm.pp.se>
To: Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk>
Cc: 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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506100936040.9487@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@swm.pp.se
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100
From: Tom Smyth <tom.smyth@wirelessconnect.eu>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
Cc: 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:
<CAJ3iMJQ=1eL-0KoCXko1pfTUzs_jnOGCXU=VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g@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@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@swm.pp.se
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/74fa72e7/attachment.html>
End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 25
*************************************************