Hi,

On 6/10/2015 1:48 PM, Lu Heng wrote:
> "Abuse" is not an opinion,  it is an statement and accusation,  and you are
> making an statement in a public space about me and my company, unless you
> have solicit evidence, such statement is unlawful across each continent.

If what happens today with the last /8 is considered an abuse and the
persons taking advantage of that loopwhole are called abusers, why would
it be different in the situation of the previous abuses ?

> The allocation was issued to my company at time of registration.
>
> But it does not matter, as it is my personally and my company business
> structure and affair, has nothing to do with the list.


% Version 1 of object "5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255"
% This version was a UPDATE operation on 2012-09-06 11:53
% You can use "--list-versions" to get a list of versions for an object.

inetnum:        5.224.0.0 - 5.225.255.255
netname:        NL-OUTSIDEHEAVEN-20120906
descr:          Heng Lu trading as "OutsideHeaven"
country:        NL
org:            ORG-HLta1-RIPE
admin-c:        OHS18-RIPE
tech-c:         OHS18-RIPE
status:         ALLOCATED PA
mnt-by:         RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
mnt-lower:      OH-MNT
mnt-domains:    OH-MNT
mnt-routes:     OVH-MNT
source:         RIPE # Filtered

5.224.0.0/15 was given to Heng Lu trading as ... on 06.02.2012. A week
later there were no more IPs left.

>> It is very interesting to find out that the IPs were allocated to you by
>> the same person that has initiated this proposal.
>>
>
> Elvis made the proposal, yes, and Elvis was one of the hostmaster processed
> our application, yes.

He approved your request for hudreds of thousands of IPs, even approved
this last-second allocation. I honestly didn't know that but it can only
support my opposition to this proposal.

> However,  Elvis was NOT the only person process our application, large
> request are processed by hostmaster team rather than single hostmaster, and
> I can add this(Elvis might as well agree)to my personal opinion, he was the
> most unfriendly hostmaster we happen to come across at that time, So do not
> make it personal.

I'm not making it personal. For example David Hilario was very friendly
but he only approved half of what I requested for the company that had
the largest IPv6 deployment at that time.

> And as far as I concern, Elvis are making this proposal at good of whole
> community, there is no his personal interest involved, as he is an IP
> broker now, passing this proposal only means less business for him but not
> more business.

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 are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing
>> it
>>> in a public space.
>>
>> That is my opinion based on the facts that I already mentioned.
>>
>
> Again, Abuse is an strong statement and it is not an simple "opinion". in
> which fact you have mentioned that leads to this conclusion?

Abuse, abuse abuse. This same word was used when refering to the sale of
/22s from the last /8. Why is it such a strong statement now ? Everybody
was using it on this list.

>>> 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).
>>
>> Well, maybe it was not your case since you were showing a very
>> convincing growth exactly in the last year. Unlike you the company I
>> worked for was just a simple corporation with over 5000 employees, over
>> 2 million subscribers and yes, I was denied a /13, only received about
>> half and that was after the thorough analysis. Below is the mail I
>> received confirming this:
>>
>>> Because of the size, the request will go now through an approval
>>> process that involves the RIPE NCC management. This may take up
>>> to 3 working days.
>>> This means that the size of the request is not approved yet and
>>> might change depending on the outcome of the approval process.
>>>
>>> If there are any questions do please let me know.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> David Hilario
>>> RIPE NCC IP Resource Analyst
>>
>
> Ripe NCC management does not equal to RIPE board, making accusation on
> board involved in the registration service is totally false.

I appologize, I don't have such a deep knowledge of RIPE's
infrastructure. I confused RIPE management with RIPE board. Probably I
should have said the "guys from the top floor".

>
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Yes, right, I'm sure you make a good point and everything is reasonable.
>> Sorry for being unable to understand your arguments.
>>
>>> 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).
>>
>> I don't seek anyone's agreement, I'm presenting facts and raising
>> questions. The final one would be: Is this policy going to protect the
>> value of the assets that were obtained through abuse in the past ?
>>
>
> Again, this policy to best of my knowledge has nothing to do with the value
> of the IP address, it is technical place rather commercial market place,
> the current intention of last /8 is based on future transition of the
> internet to IPv6, and behaviour like open/close LIR in order to obtain as
> much as possible /22 defeat such intention, so it more of a patch up to the
> current policy rather putting any real change there.(my view on this we
> should have it done at transfer policy so we do not need to have to discuss
> it here).

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her".

When you accuse the 2 russians and other smaller profitors of abuse,
then I can not take it seriously. You're too big compared to them (I
hope you don't take this personally too). And now that you have shed
some light and told us that Elvis, the inititor of this proposal is the
one that approved all that outrageous allocations to you, I can only
hope for some other sane persons to see which problems needs to be solved.

Ciprian