Dear Garry If you read my previous messages you can find my solution. We have to discuss about accepting this proposals or not. We will talk about other solutions in other proposals. -- Shahin Gharghi
Den 2015-07-01 08:31, Shahin Gharghi skrev:
Dear Garry If you read my previous messages you can find my solution.
It's sort of difficult to follow your previous thoughts due to the lack of your ability to keep same discussion in same thread. Please, don't break the threads. -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I can't do it now. 01.07.2015, 10:42, "Bengt Gördén" <bengan@resilans.se>:
Den 2015-07-01 08:31, Shahin Gharghi skrev:
Dear Garry If you read my previous messages you can find my solution.
It's sort of difficult to follow your previous thoughts due to the lack of your ability to keep same discussion in same thread. Please, don't break the threads.
--
Bengt Gördén Resilans AB
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:46:07AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I can't do it now.
The argument "this proposal does not go far enough and loopholes remain in other areas" has been heard and is considered addressed. If you want a change that addresses people opening multiple LIRs, please bring up a policy proposal to that extent. 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
If you go here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 you can read next: To put this into perspective, the RIPE NCC has allocated about 6,100 /22s from 185/8. In the past six months, the average rate has been around 245 allocations per month. Therefore, the transfers which the policy proposal tries to discourage constitute about 10% of the total allocations in recent months. Why do you calculate the part of transfers for last 6 months when /8 is allocated earlier and the part of transfer for HOLE /8 is only 3%? You also could review the period when the part of transfers was the same as the part of allocated blocks and write that the part of transfers from /8 is 100% 01.07.2015, 11:04, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:46:07AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I can't do it now.
The argument "this proposal does not go far enough and loopholes remain in other areas" has been heard and is considered addressed.
If you want a change that addresses people opening multiple LIRs, please bring up a policy proposal to that extent.
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
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Hey Guys, <irony> why not drop whole "last /8 policy" and give the rest of IPV4 to the first one asking for it? I'd need those IPs, so I am the first one asking. As soon as there are no IPs in last /8 left, this proposal is obsolete. </irony> Sorry could not resist! Jens Am 1. Juli 2015 10:19:51 MESZ, schrieb Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net>:
If you go here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 you can read next:
To put this into perspective, the RIPE NCC has allocated about 6,100 /22s from 185/8. In the past six months, the average rate has been around 245 allocations per month. Therefore, the transfers which the policy proposal tries to discourage constitute about 10% of the total allocations in recent months.
Why do you calculate the part of transfers for last 6 months when /8 is allocated earlier and the part of transfer for HOLE /8 is only 3%?
You also could review the period when the part of transfers was the same as the part of allocated blocks and write that the part of transfers from /8 is 100%
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:46:07AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I can't do it now.
The argument "this proposal does not go far enough and loopholes remain in other areas" has been heard and is considered addressed.
If you want a change that addresses people opening multiple LIRs,
01.07.2015, 11:04, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>: please
bring up a policy proposal to that extent.
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
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
!DSPAM:637,5593a3ec280481407632425!
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
Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If you go here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 you can read next:
To put this into perspective, the RIPE NCC has allocated about 6,100 /22s from 185/8. In the past six months, the average rate has been around 245 allocations per month. Therefore, the transfers which the policy proposal tries to discourage constitute about 10% of the total allocations in recent months.
Why do you calculate the part of transfers for last 6 months when /8 is allocated earlier and the part of transfer for HOLE /8 is only 3%?
Because, as has been demonstrated to you, this trend has a clear upward curve - and the absolute numbers do not really matter if specific behaviour is seen that the community does not want. Your attempt to argue with the small numbers seen so far has been made in the review phase, and didn't have the desired effect then. So, it is not a *new* argument. So, please stop now, or you WILL be moderated. 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
I already wrote about such "trend". Why did you consider such "trend" as season rising or something else? So I consider "10%" just to make "necessary picture" and this number is not representative. P.S. You can block anybody in this list if you don't like the true. I think it's completely clear to all people what is happening here. 01.07.2015, 11:34, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If you go here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 you can read next:
To put this into perspective, the RIPE NCC has allocated about 6,100 /22s from 185/8. In the past six months, the average rate has been around 245 allocations per month. Therefore, the transfers which the policy proposal tries to discourage constitute about 10% of the total allocations in recent months.
Why do you calculate the part of transfers for last 6 months when /8 is allocated earlier and the part of transfer for HOLE /8 is only 3%?
Because, as has been demonstrated to you, this trend has a clear upward curve - and the absolute numbers do not really matter if specific behaviour is seen that the community does not want.
Your attempt to argue with the small numbers seen so far has been made in the review phase, and didn't have the desired effect then. So, it is not a *new* argument.
So, please stop now, or you WILL be moderated.
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
* didn't consider such 01.07.2015, 11:42, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
I already wrote about such "trend".
Why did you consider such "trend" as season rising or something else?
So I consider "10%" just to make "necessary picture" and this number is not representative.
P.S. You can block anybody in this list if you don't like the true. I think it's completely clear to all people what is happening here.
01.07.2015, 11:34, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:19:51AM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
If you go here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 you can read next:
To put this into perspective, the RIPE NCC has allocated about 6,100 /22s from 185/8. In the past six months, the average rate has been around 245 allocations per month. Therefore, the transfers which the policy proposal tries to discourage constitute about 10% of the total allocations in recent months.
Why do you calculate the part of transfers for last 6 months when /8 is allocated earlier and the part of transfer for HOLE /8 is only 3%?
Because, as has been demonstrated to you, this trend has a clear upward curve - and the absolute numbers do not really matter if specific behaviour is seen that the community does not want.
Your attempt to argue with the small numbers seen so far has been made in the review phase, and didn't have the desired effect then. So, it is not a *new* argument.
So, please stop now, or you WILL be moderated.
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42:39AM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
P.S. You can block anybody in this list if you don't like the true. I think it's completely clear to all people what is happening here.
Indeed. A few individuals try to stop the proposal by sabotaging the mailing list and our consensus-based process. And it is VERY clear who the individuals are, that they obviously stand to loose some business, and we all understand that you do not like that (but the purpose of the policy proposal *is* to make that business less lucrative, so, yes, we officially do not care for your business). As the chairs cannot let individuals destroy this list, moderation will happen if you just go on and on and on. We have received enough complaints about the noise level already. 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
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right? If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments. May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth. 2015-07-01 11:55 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42:39AM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
P.S. You can block anybody in this list if you don't like the true. I think it's completely clear to all people what is happening here.
Indeed. A few individuals try to stop the proposal by sabotaging the mailing list and our consensus-based process.
And it is VERY clear who the individuals are, that they obviously stand to loose some business, and we all understand that you do not like that (but the purpose of the policy proposal *is* to make that business less lucrative, so, yes, we officially do not care for your business).
As the chairs cannot let individuals destroy this list, moderation will happen if you just go on and on and on. We have received enough complaints about the noise level already.
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
-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE region works. We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not everybody agrees). The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* arguments that have been overlooked before. Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on creating noise, they will be quietened. (Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements in this phase) 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
Please don't tell about Last Call. In Review you also didn't considered point of view which differs from you own. 01.07.2015, 12:10, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE region works.
We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not everybody agrees).
The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* arguments that have been overlooked before.
Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on creating noise, they will be quietened.
(Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements in this phase)
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
In discussion phase and review period we wrote e.g. 1+1=2 and didn't think the WG can write that it is false and then write big letter that 1+1 = 10 (in binary system) and the Last Call period take place. So we try to write again but this was said earlier and doesn't counted now. 2015-07-01 12:21 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
Please don't tell about Last Call.
In Review you also didn't considered point of view which differs from you own.
01.07.2015, 12:10, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE region works.
We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not everybody agrees).
The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* arguments that have been overlooked before.
Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on creating noise, they will be quietened.
(Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements in this phase)
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
Please don't tell about Last Call.
In Review you also didn't considered point of view which differs from you own.
The point of views you have expressed, HAVE been discussed, and they have been considered previously, by the working group. You are free to feel that they haven't been adequately considered, and that point is adequately made. However, your point of view didn't gain consensus, or even break consensus. At this point in time, it's too late for you to raise the same points again, no matter how much you disagree with how things stand. At this point in time, you may raise NEW concerns. You haven't, though. I see that you feel it's more important to make noise, than to follow the procedures. If you really felt so strongly about this, which I sincerely doubt, you would have started the process with a counter-proposal, annulling the effects of 2015-01. You could have had a new proposal on the table right away, and the PDP could have started, and if your proposal gained consensus, it could have taken effect early next year. But your choice is to make noise instead. This is disrespectful to us other group members. PS: WG chairs, my apologies for posting this, but I really, really felt the need to point out that this isn't just something of Gert's doing. -- Jan
Greetings! We discussed internally and divided to write our arguments against 2015-01 again in more clear way: 0) Very interesting discussion, people who see bad things in this proposal write arguments and nobody listen to them, but people who say ok - doesn't say anything. Not fair discussion! 1) This proposal is most profitable for RIPE NCC only and will make end users to get IPs harder (not only from new lirs). 2) It doesn't close multi-LIR ability and that's normal. 3) People who says it's very profitable or so are mistaken. In other case everyone can do that and them also, and they would be against this proposal too, but it's not so as you may see. That's not so. New LIRs ability is open for everyone and people (big IP owners) redistribute IPs more easy. And in most cases it's easy and better then open LIRs. So the fact is that new LIRs registration rate is the same as usual. Rate of LIRs is normal: Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 2013 1836 1880064 12% 83% 14099456 2014 2469 2534400 16% 67% 11565056 2015 1587 1643520 10% 57% 9921536 Total: 6671 6855680 41% 59% 9921536 +RIPE free IPs pool is growing. total was 627 blocks only from 185.x transfered. but total LIRs that get 185 blocks are and total 6671, its 9,3% it's not significant. 3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them. This proposal is against it. Because it may make more difficult possible transfer = rise the market prices and speculations. We know the real situations on the market and understand what's going on. If heads of this discussions and proposal doesn't listen here we bring that up to the internet to show up in future why does that happen and that statistics shows what we told. 4) As conclusion this proposal doesn't help to switch to IPv6. It only helps to pull a cat by the balls. My conclusion: - This proposal will not help redistributing and transfer IPs. And the main reason for us - it will make other transfers harder (but not new LIRs. Not much people need new lirs or small blocks but ability is good. There is already limitation as block size /22. Yuri@Ip4market On 01.07.2015 12:10, Gert Doering wrote:
hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE region works.
We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not everybody agrees).
The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* arguments that have been overlooked before.
Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on creating noise, they will be quietened.
(Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements in this phase)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
fix in (3) correct number is 313/6671 is 4.6% On 01.07.2015 21:01, Staff wrote:
Greetings!
We discussed internally and divided to write our arguments against 2015-01 again in more clear way:
0) Very interesting discussion, people who see bad things in this proposal write arguments and nobody listen to them, but people who say ok - doesn't say anything. Not fair discussion!
1) This proposal is most profitable for RIPE NCC only and will make end users to get IPs harder (not only from new lirs).
2) It doesn't close multi-LIR ability and that's normal.
3) People who says it's very profitable or so are mistaken. In other case everyone can do that and them also, and they would be against this proposal too, but it's not so as you may see. That's not so. New LIRs ability is open for everyone and people (big IP owners) redistribute IPs more easy. And in most cases it's easy and better then open LIRs. So the fact is that new LIRs registration rate is the same as usual.
Rate of LIRs is normal:
Year Objects IPs %of /8 Rest Rest ip 2012 779 797696 5% 95% 15979520 2013 1836 1880064 12% 83% 14099456 2014 2469 2534400 16% 67% 11565056 2015 1587 1643520 10% 57% 9921536 Total: 6671 6855680 41% 59% 9921536
+RIPE free IPs pool is growing.
total was 627 blocks only from 185.x transfered. but total LIRs that get 185 blocks are and total 6671, its 9,3% it's not significant.
3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them. This proposal is against it. Because it may make more difficult possible transfer = rise the market prices and speculations. We know the real situations on the market and understand what's going on.
If heads of this discussions and proposal doesn't listen here we bring that up to the internet to show up in future why does that happen and that statistics shows what we told.
4) As conclusion this proposal doesn't help to switch to IPv6. It only helps to pull a cat by the balls.
My conclusion: - This proposal will not help redistributing and transfer IPs. And the main reason for us - it will make other transfers harder (but not new LIRs. Not much people need new lirs or small blocks but ability is good. There is already limitation as block size /22.
Yuri@Ip4market
On 01.07.2015 12:10, Gert Doering wrote:
hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:04:59PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
If anybody supports this proposal *and write +1* his voice will be counted, if don't he should write many arguments.
May be someone doesn't like this text but this is the trooth.
Please read up how the policy development process in the RIPE region works.
We're in Last Call now, which means "any arguments that have been brought up and addressed in discussion and review phase are no longer interesting" (because we consider them to be addressed, and per Sander's summary, have reached rough consensus even if not everybody agrees).
The Last Call phase is specifically there to bring up *new* arguments that have been overlooked before.
Whether *I* agree with you or anyone else has nothing to do with how the PDP works - if the argument is not new, it is not interesting, and just noise on the list. If people insist on creating noise, they will be quietened.
(Note that I'm also totally not interested in "support!" statements in this phase)
Gert Doering -- APWG chair
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Staff wrote:
3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them.
Thanks for writing a more structured list. However, the only thing of interest (to me) right now is to answer the question: "what harm would the proposed policy change do?", especially ones that hasn't been brought up. So please re-write your email with that in mind, and provide clear examples of what _harm_ the policy change would do to the actual companies that are going to USE the space (and their end users), not the ones trading in the address space. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
Hi, WG. What will we get if the proposal will take place without some changes. Businesses will buy new blocks by means of M&A. They can find funds from other directions of their business and will be wait for 24 months and make transfer. If we want really to close the hole, we have to make some changes - "The blocks allocated from the RIPE NCC and aren't used during 12 months should be returned to the RIPE NCC pool". Otherwise the last /8 will be exhausted more quickly. So I suggest to return this proposal to discussion phase. 02.07.2015, 09:41, "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2015, Staff wrote:
3) The proposal should help market and companies to redistribute IPs from the companies who don't need them to companies who needs them.
Thanks for writing a more structured list.
However, the only thing of interest (to me) right now is to answer the question:
"what harm would the proposed policy change do?", especially ones that hasn't been brought up.
So please re-write your email with that in mind, and provide clear examples of what _harm_ the policy change would do to the actual companies that are going to USE the space (and their end users), not the ones trading in the address space.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
"The blocks allocated from the RIPE NCC and aren't used during 12 months should be returned to the RIPE NCC pool".
sounds like an interesting proposal. you should write the proposal and submit it, just as we do all new proposals. randy
Hi Petr, and WG W dniu 2015-07-05 o 21:05, Petr Umelov pisze:
If we want really to close the hole, we have to make some changes - "The blocks allocated from the RIPE NCC and aren't used during 12 months should be returned to the RIPE NCC pool".
In my opinion this does not help to close the disputed hole. It's very simple (technically) to demonstrate, that the allocated pool is in use. -- Tomasz Śląski tom@kebab.org.pl
On 5 Jul 2015, at 20:05, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
So I suggest to return this proposal to discussion phase.
That’s not how it’s done. The discussion phase for the proposal is OVER. The WG has just about reached consensus. At this stage of the PDP (Last Call) we assess whether that consensus determination is valid or not. Last Call also gives everyone a final chance to raise NEW issues which did not get attention during the proposal’s discussion phase. If there are new issues, please go ahead and raise them. Your latest message seems to be going over the same old ground. If you are doing that, don’t. It's inappropriate and unhelpful. [And just a waste of everyone’s time too.] Please stop posting more of the same stuff that the WG has heard. The WG has addressed those concerns already. If there is something substantive to your latest posting apart from that earlier discussion, please state clearly what those new issue(s) are and explain how/why they were not addressed during the discussion phase. You’ve certainly not done that yet. Nobody’s found any fault with the summary of the proposal discussion that Sander posted a couple of weeks ago. I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It’s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
Hello, WG. I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities. However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations. E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707 netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709 netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710 Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves. Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years. I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions. 06.07.2015, 01:44, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>:
On 5 Jul 2015, at 20:05, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
So I suggest to return this proposal to discussion phase.
That’s not how it’s done. The discussion phase for the proposal is OVER. The WG has just about reached consensus. At this stage of the PDP (Last Call) we assess whether that consensus determination is valid or not. Last Call also gives everyone a final chance to raise NEW issues which did not get attention during the proposal’s discussion phase.
If there are new issues, please go ahead and raise them. Your latest message seems to be going over the same old ground. If you are doing that, don’t. It's inappropriate and unhelpful. [And just a waste of everyone’s time too.] Please stop posting more of the same stuff that the WG has heard. The WG has addressed those concerns already.
If there is something substantive to your latest posting apart from that earlier discussion, please state clearly what those new issue(s) are and explain how/why they were not addressed during the discussion phase. You’ve certainly not done that yet. Nobody’s found any fault with the summary of the proposal discussion that Sander posted a couple of weeks ago.
I would be happy to support returning this proposal to the discussion phase, but only if there are compelling reasons to do so. To date nobody has made the case for taking that action. Although some have asked for this, nobody has put forward anything to justify these requests. The case has not been made yet. It’s up to you and your fellow travellers to make that case.
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Hello, WG.
I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities.
However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations.
E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707
netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709
netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710
netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710
Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves.
Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years.
I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions.
Absolutely, and therefore I suggest that since the above appears to be a big problem for you, that you write down a proposal that will handle this particular problem. Most people want to scratch their itch, and if you scratch it by writing a proposal, your itch can, perhaps, be scratched too. But if you don't write that proposal, nothing will happen, and maybe your worst fears will come true, through your own inaction. It's best that those who see a problem, are the ones to attempt addressing it. -- Jan
Don't tell then I did not warn :) When you will come to your senses and will start the multi LIR hole closing during 6 months, IPv4 will be exhausted 11.07.2015, 21:39, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Hello, WG.
I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities.
However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations.
E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707
netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709
netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710
netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710
Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves.
Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years.
I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions.
Absolutely, and therefore I suggest that since the above appears to be a big problem for you, that you write down a proposal that will handle this particular problem.
Most people want to scratch their itch, and if you scratch it by writing a proposal, your itch can, perhaps, be scratched too.
But if you don't write that proposal, nothing will happen, and maybe your worst fears will come true, through your own inaction.
It's best that those who see a problem, are the ones to attempt addressing it. -- Jan
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Current proposal supporters may also need cheap IP's so this hole will not be closed. It's time to spell out that current proposal never had an aim to reduce IPv4 exhaustion. 11.07.2015, 21:47, "Petr Umelov" <petr@fast-telecom.net>:
Don't tell then I did not warn :)
When you will come to your senses and will start the multi LIR hole closing during 6 months, IPv4 will be exhausted
11.07.2015, 21:39, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Hello, WG.
I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities.
However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations.
E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707
netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709
netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710
netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710
Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves.
Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years.
I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions.
Absolutely, and therefore I suggest that since the above appears to be a big problem for you, that you write down a proposal that will handle this particular problem.
Most people want to scratch their itch, and if you scratch it by writing a proposal, your itch can, perhaps, be scratched too.
But if you don't write that proposal, nothing will happen, and maybe your worst fears will come true, through your own inaction.
It's best that those who see a problem, are the ones to attempt addressing it. -- Jan
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
All these words about IPv4 "exhaustion" and evil "abusers" is just a screen to reach some goals for some group of people. I think all sane people understand it perfectly. We already see some consequences of this proposal even BEFORE its acceptance (as Petr Umelov wrote): request count for IPv4 allocations has grow. 11.07.2015, 21:52, "Vladimir Andreev" <vladimir@quick-soft.net>:
Current proposal supporters may also need cheap IP's so this hole will not be closed.
It's time to spell out that current proposal never had an aim to reduce IPv4 exhaustion.
11.07.2015, 21:47, "Petr Umelov" <petr@fast-telecom.net>:
Don't tell then I did not warn :)
When you will come to your senses and will start the multi LIR hole closing during 6 months, IPv4 will be exhausted
11.07.2015, 21:39, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 7:30 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Hello, WG.
I understand you will approve this proposal in any case, you have made a decision in January and should comply with formalities.
However I see many companies began to open multi LIR accounts and receive additional allocations.
E.g. netname: NL-PCXCOP-20150707 netname: NL-PCXMAD-20150707
netname: DK-BORNFIBER5-20150709 netname: DK-BORNFIBER9-20150709
netname: ES-RULZ2-20150710 netname: ES-RULZ3-20150710
netname: ES-SUNNY2-20150710 netname: ES-SUNNY3-20150710
Traders don't want to lose their profit and will begin to provide services to help open new accounts for the same company and companies will be do it by themselves.
Thus IPv4 pool will be exhausted during 1-2 years.
I understand the RIPE NCC dislike someone makes profit using RIPE's resources but we should not make emotional decisions.
Absolutely, and therefore I suggest that since the above appears to be a big problem for you, that you write down a proposal that will handle this particular problem.
Most people want to scratch their itch, and if you scratch it by writing a proposal, your itch can, perhaps, be scratched too.
But if you don't write that proposal, nothing will happen, and maybe your worst fears will come true, through your own inaction.
It's best that those who see a problem, are the ones to attempt addressing it. -- Jan
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Don't tell then I did not warn :)
When you will come to your senses and will start the multi LIR hole closing during 6 months, IPv4 will be exhausted
When will you actually DO something, and not just demand that others take action to solve a problem YOU want fixed? I'm starting to think that you're not really bothered by this "hole", and that you want it to stay open, but keep on complaining that OTHERS aren't doing your job. -- Jan
I can create a proposal, closing multi LIR accounts. Even Marco told me he could provide necessary docs. But it will take 6 months before it will be approved according to the PDP. So I ask to stand-by with this proposal, before we close bigger hole. 11.07.2015, 22:46, "Jan Ingvoldstad" <frettled@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 8:47 PM, Petr Umelov <petr@fast-telecom.net> wrote:
Don't tell then I did not warn :)
When you will come to your senses and will start the multi LIR hole closing during 6 months, IPv4 will be exhausted
When will you actually DO something, and not just demand that others take action to solve a problem YOU want fixed?
I'm starting to think that you're not really bothered by this "hole", and that you want it to stay open, but keep on complaining that OTHERS aren't doing your job. -- Jan
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
Hi, On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:56:50PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
I can create a proposal, closing multi LIR accounts. Even Marco told me he could provide necessary docs.
But it will take 6 months before it will be approved according to the PDP.
So I ask to stand-by with this proposal, before we close bigger hole.
These are independent aspects of the same larger problem - and you totally fail to give a reason why "not implementing 2015-01" would help discouraging people from opening multiple LIRs *anyway*... Gert Doering -- 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
Because of sellers won't be sell allocations and will consult how to open multiple LIR accounts and their clients will be get more allocations than if they would buy it as transfer from other LIR. And clients will alert their partners and partners their partners and many members will know about this hole and will deplete IPv4 resources. 12.07.2015, 17:15, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 10:56:50PM +0300, Petr Umelov wrote:
I can create a proposal, closing multi LIR accounts. Even Marco told me he could provide necessary docs.
But it will take 6 months before it will be approved according to the PDP.
So I ask to stand-by with this proposal, before we close bigger hole.
These are independent aspects of the same larger problem - and you totally fail to give a reason why "not implementing 2015-01" would help discouraging people from opening multiple LIRs *anyway*...
Gert Doering -- 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
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
please submit the first draft of your proposal. then folk can judge if it is useful to delay 2015-01. otherwise it's just cheap talk. randy
What do you mean cheap talk? One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you? But when you will understand it, it will be too late. Or the RIPE NCC wants to deplete IPv4 purposely to help to switch to IPv6. I don't see any reasons of this proposal creation. Here are people who can calculate all part of the transfers. But they are lazy and trust for WG. 12.07.2015, 19:55, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>:
please submit the first draft of your proposal. then folk can judge if it is useful to delay 2015-01. otherwise it's just cheap talk.
randy
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
If you want to be cheated, I won't be prevent it :) 12.07.2015, 20:12, "Petr Umelov" <petr@fast-telecom.net>:
What do you mean cheap talk? One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you?
But when you will understand it, it will be too late. Or the RIPE NCC wants to deplete IPv4 purposely to help to switch to IPv6.
I don't see any reasons of this proposal creation. Here are people who can calculate all part of the transfers. But they are lazy and trust for WG.
12.07.2015, 19:55, "Randy Bush" <randy@psg.com>:
please submit the first draft of your proposal. then folk can judge if it is useful to delay 2015-01. otherwise it's just cheap talk.
randy
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
What do you mean cheap talk? One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you?
no. there is a simple a process (eurocratic though it may be). submit a proposal. it is not that hard. as you said, marco is kind enough to help. fwiw, i, and i assume many others, would love to see a proposal for tightening the leakage. randy
Guten Tag,
What do you mean cheap talk? One company can not setup more than one account. Is it enough for you? ... I don't see any reasons of this proposal creation. Here are people who can calculate all part of the transfers. But they are lazy and trust for WG. (was it you who complained earlier about personal attacks or insults? Do you have to stoop so low yourself?)
Creating a proposal is the first step to a policy change - or, possibly, delaying this change. Putting some more "meat" on your above proposal isn't that much work - instead of whining about people not understanding you and purposefully wanting to deplete the IPv4 pool, why don't you take that time (judging from the amount of posts you made over the last couple week, it must have been quite an amount) and put together your suggestion in the form of a policy proposal, explaining the short-falls of 2015-1 and why your suggestion - possibly in addition to 2015-1? - fixes the problem better? Currently, your ramblings have just put off people, hurting your cause more than helping it ... From what I have read, several (many/most?) on the group do know that the current proposal isn't the final fix for the problem, so going at this CONSTRUCTIVELY will most likely get you support from the community ... -garry
Procedural question: 2015-01 is still on track and this thread is not influencing it in any way, correct? Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.
Hi, On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 07:06:41PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
Procedural question: 2015-01 is still on track and this thread is not influencing it in any way, correct?
So far, I have not seen any new arguments against 2015-01, and neither any procedural issues raised. In other words: we're in Last Call = concluding phase, and I do not see anything that would hold up declaration of (rough) consensus when it ends (but for neutrality reasons, I'll leave that particular judgement to Sander again). 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
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:04, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
No, no and no. The WG made (or is making) the decision in the usual manner: by consensus. The WG's co-chairs are responsible for determining when the WG has reached consensus. The opinion of every member of the WG matters and is taken into account in that consensus determination. Provided of course the WG member expresses their opinion and does so in a reasonable way (ie no abusive/insulting language or ad-hominem attacks). Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Please read RFC7282. Here's a quote from that: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". Although this RFC is for the IETF's decision making its principles apply to RIPE and other Internet organisations too. In the case of 2015-01, we're at the point where the WG needs to decide if all the issues in the proposal have been addressed even if some of them not have not been accommodated. IMO we have reached that point. YMMV.
Hi! Yes. Also RFC7282 says:
One hundred people for and five people against might not be rough consensus
Section 3 discussed the idea of consensus being achieved when objections had been addressed (that is, properly considered, and accommodated if necessary). Because of this, using rough consensus avoids a major pitfall of a straight vote: If there is a minority of folks who have a valid technical objection, that objection must be dealt with before consensus can be declared.
And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered! So do we have real consensus? 01.07.2015, 12:25, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>:
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:04, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:
Whatever we say, you made the decision, and our opinion does not matter. Right?
No, no and no. The WG made (or is making) the decision in the usual manner: by consensus. The WG's co-chairs are responsible for determining when the WG has reached consensus. The opinion of every member of the WG matters and is taken into account in that consensus determination. Provided of course the WG member expresses their opinion and does so in a reasonable way (ie no abusive/insulting language or ad-hominem attacks).
Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Please read RFC7282. Here's a quote from that: "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated". Although this RFC is for the IETF's decision making its principles apply to RIPE and other Internet organisations too.
In the case of 2015-01, we're at the point where the WG needs to decide if all the issues in the proposal have been addressed even if some of them not have not been accommodated. IMO we have reached that point. YMMV.
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered!
Please state calmly and clearly what important aspects were not considered. ie On <date> I said <whatever> and the WG said <whatever2>. IMO the issues I raised in <whatever> were not considered because <whatever2>. Here's the proof: <whatever3>. IMO the consensus determination of the WG co-chairs is therefore flawed because <whatever4>. Please do not try to revisit previous discussion threads about the proposal. We're past that point. The discussion phase of the PDP is over. We're now at the stage of assessing if the consensus determination is valid or not. If you think that's not valid, please present evidence to support that opinion. That does not mean restating the issues you raised in the discussion phase. We're no longer discussing these in the context of the current proposal. Or shouldn't be doing that now. You are of course welcome to put forward a new policy proposal which reflects your earlier concerns. You can do that irrespective of whether the current proposal gets adopted or not.
Hi, On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:00:19AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
And I already spoke that important aspects were not considered!
Please state calmly and clearly what important aspects were not considered. ie
On <date> I said <whatever> and the WG said <whatever2>. IMO the issues I raised in <whatever> were not considered because <whatever2>. Here's the proof: <whatever3>. IMO the consensus determination of the WG co-chairs is therefore flawed because <whatever4>.
And please take into account the summary Sander has posted at the end of the discussion phase. Especially for the objections (where it was possible to understand the point made, not in all cases that succeeded) Sander has written a detailed answer why he thinks that this is not sufficient to hold up the proposal. 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
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
So do we have real consensus?
For this policy proposal, I think we do. Though it's not down to me to make that decision. Jan Ingvoldstat has just explained where you are going wrong and what to do about that. Short version: you're in a hole, so stop digging. Unless you have NEW concerns about 2015-01 that have not been previously raised, I think you should stop adding noise. More noise is unhelpful and annoying and just a total waste of everyone's time. The PDP is open to you if you wish to propose a policy which addresses your concerns and/or cancels 2015-01.
Ha-ha.
Short version: you're in a hole, so stop digging.
As I see the circus must go on. Just to laugh at... 01.07.2015, 13:09, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>:
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
So do we have real consensus?
For this policy proposal, I think we do. Though it's not down to me to make that decision.
Jan Ingvoldstat has just explained where you are going wrong and what to do about that. Short version: you're in a hole, so stop digging.
Unless you have NEW concerns about 2015-01 that have not been previously raised, I think you should stop adding noise. More noise is unhelpful and annoying and just a total waste of everyone's time.
The PDP is open to you if you wish to propose a policy which addresses your concerns and/or cancels 2015-01.
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
A little addition: "stop adding noise", "stop making noise" — all these sentence are the best-loved for me :) Of course you and some other people don't make a noise. Just me and people opposing this proposal :) 01.07.2015, 13:09, "Jim Reid" <jim@rfc1035.com>:
On 1 Jul 2015, at 10:39, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:
So do we have real consensus?
For this policy proposal, I think we do. Though it's not down to me to make that decision.
Jan Ingvoldstat has just explained where you are going wrong and what to do about that. Short version: you're in a hole, so stop digging.
Unless you have NEW concerns about 2015-01 that have not been previously raised, I think you should stop adding noise. More noise is unhelpful and annoying and just a total waste of everyone's time.
The PDP is open to you if you wish to propose a policy which addresses your concerns and/or cancels 2015-01.
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
I'm NOT speaking about my business now and you see it. I'm speaking about current proposal discussion and ask you why were not some really IMPORTANT facts taken into consideration? And I tell personally you again: I just want opinion of all parties involved into discussion would considered equally. P.S. Block me if you want. It's THE last method then someone have no more arguments and can't solve a problem in a normal way. 01.07.2015, 11:55, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 11:42:39AM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
P.S. You can block anybody in this list if you don't like the true. I think it's completely clear to all people what is happening here.
Indeed. A few individuals try to stop the proposal by sabotaging the mailing list and our consensus-based process.
And it is VERY clear who the individuals are, that they obviously stand to loose some business, and we all understand that you do not like that (but the purpose of the policy proposal *is* to make that business less lucrative, so, yes, we officially do not care for your business).
As the chairs cannot let individuals destroy this list, moderation will happen if you just go on and on and on. We have received enough complaints about the noise level already.
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
-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:04, Gert Doering wrote:
If you want a change that addresses people opening multiple LIRs, please bring up a policy proposal to that extent.
... on members-discuss and possibly for the next GM. That is a membership issue not a policy one.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 09:46, Petr Umelov wrote:
If this proposal closes multi LIR accounts hole, I will support it. But I can't do it now.
The multi LIR accounts issue is a pure NCC issue, not a policy one. That discussion should probbaly be started on members-discuss mailing-list where RIPE NCC officials do respond to such issues.
participants (16)
-
Aleksey Bulgakov -
Bengt Gördén -
Garry Glendown -
Gert Doering -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jim Reid -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Opteamax GmbH -
Petr Umelov -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Randy Bush -
Richard Hartmann -
Shahin Gharghi -
Staff -
Tomasz SLASKI -
Vladimir Andreev