On 06/29/2015 08:16 PM, Shahin Gharghi wrote:

...

First of all, as mentioned in proposal, by this rate of transfers, last /8 will be exhausted in 5.5 years and we will have to switch to IPv6 in 5 years… Always loving a good IPv6 joke in the evening :-)

Btw, did anybody notice ARIN is down to something like 80 /23 and 400 /24? That's an equivalent of of 140 /22s ... and it's dropping quickly ... if anybody still thinks you can wait 5 years to implement IPv6 is either stupid, or racing towards the wall (of not being able to talk to every site on the Internet) with open eyes ... -garry

Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:34:32PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:

Hi.<br /><br />The RIPE NCC receives /9 from IANA every 6 months

It does not. And please, arguments like "this will not stop abuse", "this is not going far enough", "we have enough addresses" and "it's my good right to make money out of the last-/8 policy and so do not call it abuse!!" have been heard and duly considered. If you can come up with a NEW argument that can be reasonably backed by factual arguments, we're all ears. Repeating what was already repeated often enough in discussion and review phase will only annoy people into ignoring you. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:47:19PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

Why not to write down and weigh all the arguments for and against the proposal?

This is such a good idea that Sander did it two weeks ago in the conclusion summary when he declared rough consensus. Your point being? Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Hi, On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:02:42PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

I mean detailed analysis of pros and cons.

For example, why wasn't it separately mentioned about M&A as a BIG hole?

Because that's outside the scope of APWG, and as such, totally not relevant to this proposal. M&A is RIPE NCC procedures. "This proposal does not go far enough" and "there are other holes" arguments have been voiced, and have been considered. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Really? I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander. 29.06.2015, 22:49, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

  Hi,

  On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:

...

   Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.<br />

  Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered.

  Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote.

  Gert Doering           -- NetMaster   --   have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

  SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard   Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann   D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)   Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Dear Petr,

 But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. Yes, but technically it will be the same. You will transfer this IPs in 2 years and all parties will be happy. You will have IPs. It will stop creating LIRs just for transfers.

-- Aleksei   29.06.2015 23:23 - Petr Umelov wrote: One more argument. For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs) But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to 185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22. But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved. 29.06.2015, 23:17, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:

Really?

I don't see any references to that matter in the letter from Sander.

29.06.2015, 22:49, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

...

   Hi,

   On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:45:43PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:

...

    Excuse me, /13. But it is the same argument.<br />

   Yes, it is, and it has been duly considered.

   Please turn off HTML in mails to this list, and do not top quote.

   Gert Doering            -- NetMaster    --    have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

   SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard    Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann    D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)    Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

--  Kind regards, Petr Umelov  

Am 29.06.15 um 23:52 schrieb Petr Umelov:

In 2 years the second block can be in black list and it is better to receive it earlier

Hi, now that was a Freudian slip that gives us a hint what the underlying business model really is. If ISPs burn through networks in a rate that puts whole /22s on blacklists within two years' time, they should think about the reasons instead of crying wolf. Why should RIPE, RIPE NCC, the community as a whole or anyone else help those people run a parasitic business model? Regards, --ck

Guten Tag,

Persomal attack!

Let's talk substantially While I do not see a personal attack as such (just opposing your argument isn't a personal attack IMHO), let's stick to substantial:

Being blacklisted isn't something that is out of an LIR's hands - when they get notified of a problem/abuse on the side of your customers, and they chose not to do anything about it, which in turn leads to blacklisting of not only a single IP but the LIRs *COMPLETE* /22 (which shows that most likely the problem isn't caused by a single IP), I'd say it's not a problem that either RIPE or the community has to solve ... and most certainly not a reason to oppose 2015-1 for ... Regards, Garry

(all hats off) If you design your network infrastructure so it requires a /21 to work, when a /22 is all you're likely to get, the problem is not the policy giving you a /22. And as always, if you don't like a policy, propose a new one yourself. Remco On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 10:53 PM Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

Hi,

...

One more argument.

For example LIR has IPv4 185.100.104.0/22 and 185.100.116.0/22 (we talk

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 11:23:19PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote: that multi LIRs accounts don't abuse the system and LIR can have such IPs)

...

But LIR's infrastructure needs to have /21. LIR can write to

185.100.108.0/22 owner and change his 185.100.116.0/22.

...

But LIR has to wait for 24 months to do it if this proposal is approved.

There is nothing that you could do with a /21 that you could not do with 2x /22. Except, maybe, sell it off as a "single /21".

Next.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Petr Umelov wrote:

Excuse me, /13.

I am afraid you have misunderstood the policy. The policy requires allocation units defined as: "IPv4 allocation unit = 1/5 of Recovered IPv4 pool, rounded down to the next CIDR (power-of-2) boundary." with a /24 minimum. The result is that unless the pool size is increased so that it comprises five CIDR prefix equivalents, in which case it would be emptied in one go, the allocated prefixes will halve in size at each allocation period. You can grab the software to see what will be allocated next at: https://github.com/icann/ipv4-recovery-algorithm Kind regards, Leo Vegoda