Hi. What if some one opens business, become a LIR (pay money for it) then understand that he need to close his business? But he cannot even sell IPs because of this proposal. I think, the NCC can create special section in LIR portal (there is already one) but there will be IPs from the last /8 only. And when new LIR will request the resources, the NCC will check it in LIR portal and suggest to take one of them. It will save the last /8 for new members. So I oppose this proposal. 2016-06-16 17:41 GMT+03:00 Dickinson, Ian <Ian.Dickinson@sky.uk>:

Hi Remco,

I'm still thinking this through, but a few questions jumped out at me, which imply there is still wordsmithing required.

Given that the wording implies retroactively applying to everything previously allocated in 185/8, what will happen to those ALLOCATED FINAL allocations that have already been transferred? And where there are already multiple such ALLOCATED FINAL allocations within a single LIR?

What is the policy for Merger & Acquisition with respect to ALLOCATED FINAL allocations as opposed to resource transfer?

Ian

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Remco van Mook Sent: 16 June 2016 15:14 To: Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Thank you Marco.

Dear all,

I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

Looking forward to a positive discussion,

Remco

* any suggestions for a better title for this space are most welcome as well

...

On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:58 , Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

Dear colleagues,

The Discussion Period for the policy proposal 2016-03, "Locking Down the Final /8 Policy" has been extended until 15 July 2016.

The goal of this proposal is to ban transfers of allocations made under the final /8 policy.

The text of the proposal has been revised based on mailing list feedback and we have published a new version (2.0) today. As a result, a new Discussion Phase has started for the proposal.

Some of the differences from version 1.0 include: - Several restrictions have been removed - Adds a recommendation that LIRs should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes

You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2016-03

We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence.

Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.

-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

And will lose his money 2016-06-16 17:59 GMT+03:00 Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com>:

...

On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:53, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:

What if some one opens business, become a LIR (pay money for it) then understand that he need to close his business?

Same as what’s supposed to happen today. They return the space to the NCC.

-- ---------- Best regards, Aleksey Bulgakov Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29

Hi Aleksey,

And will lose his money

The money is a membership fee that allowed them to hold resources while they were a member. Stop being a member = stop holding resources. Allocations are for running networks with, not making money... Cheers, Sander

Hi,

You can't make money without allocations. Networks are not running to keep flashing lights on the devices and drawing graphs in cacti. They earn money in prevailing cases.

Indeed, and while you still run a network you remain a member and you keep your address space. Cheers, Sander

I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including

the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for *NO* allocations. Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to the smallest ones, it is not fair. Regards, Arash

Hi Payam,

My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper justification] I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block which he approved was less than what we requested. And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else.

These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling!

That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space

If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve new customers due to lack of IP space.

we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years following the allocation, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even un-advertised!) ones!

On 2016-06-17 02:58:20 CET, Arash Naderpour wrote:

...

...

I find this inconsistent. Either we do it for *ALL* allocations (including the ones allocated prior to the 2012/09 ipocalipse), effectively banning or heavily >restricting transfers, or we keep it the way it is today, i.e. for *NO* allocations.

Not sure why returning some /22 to RIPE NCC free pool can save the new-comers but other allocations prior 2012 cannot. If returning an allocation is something visible it should be for all allocations not only to the smallest ones, it is not fair.

Regards,

Arash

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Hi Sander It was not about allegation! It was about efficiency of policies and procedures in place during those days. Those practices led to today's situation. Statistics are clear. See who is selling, who is buying and which LIR still has un-assigned/un-advertised/no-traffic IP blocks.

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space

The way I interpret the proposal is: it only address part of the problem! And by partially handling the problem, you would not be able to help the internet community. I would suggest to look at the problem from a wider angel. The issue is lack of IPv4 for those who need IPv4! I emphasize: it is not "lack of IPv4" only! It is "lack of IPv4 for those who need". As I believe there are still enough IPv4 but they is not well and fair distributed! While there are IPv4 for sale and trades get happened, it means still there are enough IP :) You are more knowledgeable than me in IPv4 space utilization. You must have seen heat-maps of IPv4 usage. Your point on use cases which do not need having the allocated blocks advertised makes sense, but the portion of such uses cases might not be considerable. And I would love to hear from IP analysts that how often they have the approved allocations based on such use cases (i.e. size-wise)

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space.

That is what the /22s are for: to allow newcomers (from anywhere within the region, we don't discriminate on location) access to some free IPv4 addresses.

It happens. Business plans change, market conditions change. Some people may even have lied about their needs in such a way that it is impossible to

Sander, Please let me know who are the buyers in the current market? The new LIR? Or the existing ISPs who do not have enough IP to server their customers. My point was the demand is there in the market. By this proposal, nothing happens to solve the main issue but it moves the money direction to those who hold IP space from long time ago. If an ISP need IP, it wold purchase! No question! Unless the pricing make the business plan out of balance. So this proposal would not help the eco system. It only causes price increase and those who can benefit from selling IP blocks. Please look to this problem as a "system dynamic" problem. Buy putting some restriction in a part of eco system, without tackling the real problem, nothing would get better. prove. Remember: allocations were made based on expected growth. Expectations often don't come true exactly the way people planned things. ISP planning often happens for 3-to-6-month periods. The 24 month estimates for allocation requests have always been difficult to judge. In response to this par of you email: 1- That is the most easiest way of justifying. why not to create and enforce policies which return the not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond itions-change o the free pool? 2- for sure nobody can judge before something happens. But when it happens, it could be judged. So after 24-month period you can judge, and there are lots of over-2-year allocations which could be studies :) 3-my understanding is the whole proposed policy is based on pre-judgment. It wanted to prevent the speculation of IPv4 which is fine, but how do you know that those who received blocks after September 14th 2012 are speculators? Their business plans could get changed. Their market could get changed as well. Quite similar to what you said. 4- Also as Arash mentioned, why do you want to only make the recent allocations unattractive for speculation, please make the whole allocations unattractive for such purpose:) My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those who really require IP, can get IP. Best Regards -Payam -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: June 17, 2016 2:29 PM To: Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Working Group <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Sorry, got bumped into and accidentally hit Send before I was done :) Here is the rest: Hi Payam,

My point of view is such policies in practice would punish the newcomers rather than those who got plenty of resources in the old days [probably without proper justification] I remember the days which our LIR was negotiating with a RIPE NCC IP analyst and he declined our request although we had proved that our need was even more than what we submitted in our application, and eventually the block which he approved was less than what we requested. And at those time, some other western LIRs got their IP blocks.

Please don't make allegations like that. I have worked for western LIRs and we had exactly the same process and issues as everybody else.

These days we are trying to buy new IP blocks, and those LIRs are selling!

That funny story is the real story! While the proposed policy looks very rational, but it is not going to solve the issue! The demand is there so the market will find a way to satisfy the demand!

People with demand for a /22 can set up their own LIR. No need to let someone else set up an LIR and just sell the space.

If I were the gentleman who proposed this policy, I would have proposed another policy to push the LIRs who had not used their IPs (or pretending to use that) in favor of LIRs in the developing countries who really can't serve new customers due to lack of IP space.

That is what the /22s are for: to allow newcomers (from anywhere within the region, we don't discriminate on location) access to some free IPv4 addresses.

we should not close our eyes on the approvals which were given to LIRs who got plenty of IPs, and they were supposed to use all the IPs within two years following the allocation

It happens. Business plans change, market conditions change. Some people may even have lied about their needs in such a way that it is impossible to prove. Remember: allocations were made based on expected growth. Expectations often don't come true exactly the way people planned things. ISP planning often happens for 3-to-6-month periods. The 24 month estimates for allocation requests have always been difficult to judge.

, and still they have a lot of un-assigned (and even un-advertised!) ones!

Advertising space in the global routing table has never been a requirement. There are use cases where unique addresses are required but don't need to be advertised. Think for example about private interconnection networks between companies. The companies will already be using all the RFC1918 space internally, so to avoid addressing conflicts the interconnect network needs unique addresses. Same as IXP space, which is often also not routed. Cheers, Sander

Hi Jim Thank you for sharing your viewpoint. I'm not as knowledgeable as Sander to comment on possibility of the implementing and enforcing such policy, but not being able to do so, does not mean not to react to the policy which might not lead to its original intention. Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more people on the earth to gain access to the Internet. Best Regards -Payam -----Original Message----- From: Jim Reid [mailto:jim@rfc1035.com] Sent: June 17, 2016 3:36 PM To: Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 17 Jun 2016, at 11:55, Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> wrote:

why not to create and enforce policies which return the not-in-time-used-ip-blocks-beacuase-of-business-plans-change-and-market-cond itions-change o the free pool?

Feel free to write up and submit a policy proposal along these lines since it seems to be something that matters to you. IMO such a policy would be impractical, expensive to implement, easy to subvert and unlikely to result in much IPv4 space getting returned for reallocation. But maybe you know something I don’t. Even if space was returned from this hypothetical policy, it still doesn’t resolve anything. We still run out of IPv4 because there’s not enough of it. At best, all your policy might achieve is delay complete v4 exhaustion at the NCC by a couple of weeks. Then what?

IPv6 is not the answer for everything no matter how manytime you repeat that, it is not availble and possible to deploy everywhere. Arash On Friday, 17 June 2016, Jim Reid <jim@rfc1035.com> wrote:

...

On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net <javascript:;>> wrote:

Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more people on the earth to gain access to the Internet.

Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort that’s being wasted here haggling over the dregs of v4 would be better spent deploying IPv6.

So let's not spend on this proposal and spend on deploying IPv6 which is the better way. -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Jim Reid Sent: June 17, 2016 4:36 PM To: Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> Cc: RIPE Address Policy WG List <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

On 17 Jun 2016, at 12:47, Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> wrote:

Let's think for a better way to make it work for everybody and allow more people on the earth to gain access to the Internet.

Indeed. That better way is already here. It’s called IPv6. The effort that’s being wasted here haggling over the dregs of v4 would be better spent deploying IPv6.

Hi Sander Thank you for your reply

We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need more than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have enough addresses to give everybody what they want.

So, let's keep the transfers and not restrict part of that. Also 24-month lock after transfer is still there. And once more, you know the eco system better. Please consider the whole system. In the supply-demand market is there. This proposal would create a second grade IP blocks and bring more trade games in -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: June 17, 2016 3:50 PM To: Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> Cc: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) Hi,

My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those who really require IP, can get IP.

I wish we could, but IPv4 has run out. If we went back to the previous allocation policy and would hand out addresses from the pool based on bed then that pool would be empty in a month or two, and then we would be in a worse situation than we are now because then even handing out a /22 to a new LIR would be impossible. We allowed transfers to get unused allocations back in use. If you need more than your /22 then that is where you need to go. RIPE NCC doesn't have enough addresses to give everybody what they want. Cheers, Sander

Hi Sebastian By RIPE NCC policy definition you are right. In reality there IPv4. If there wasn't, there shouldn't have been IPv4 trades. When demands could not get satisfied, then there won't be anymore IPv4 -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger Sent: June 17, 2016 5:10 PM To: Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> Cc: 'Sander Steffann' <sander@steffann.nl>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy) * Payam Poursaied <payam@rasana.net> [2016-06-17 13:00]:

My suggesting is instead of removing the main problem (i.e. "lack of IPv4 for those who need"), please bring policies on the table which help those who really require IP, can get IP.

THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT! Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

Hi, On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:30PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:

...

THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!

And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain. 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 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:

...

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.

When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need to be returned to RIPE NCC.

Yes. But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s. Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not run around the mill with non-sensical arguments. - do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will be returned). If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely, some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many others see as immoral and abusive. But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer the question. 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

Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:20:33PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

Trading is restricted by 2015-01. Don't you see it? Open the transfer statistics and look it. But WG find the problem where is not a problem.

Please answer the question asked, if replying to a mail with a question in it. Also, proper quoting would be most most polite. thanks, 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 20, 2016 at 10:23:12AM +0100, Jim Reid wrote:

...

On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:16, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

- do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no? ... But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer the question.

No. Maybe. Depends.

If we do tweak the current policy, there???s one consequence that has to be considered though: the integrity and accuracy of the RIPE database.

Of course, right you are. Changing policy must not be done without considering the consquences, and I did not want to imply that. The problem with this thread, though, is that people have been complaining about lots of implicit things, which might or might not actually *be* a consequence of the change (like, stuff no longer present in v2), without bothering to consider the proposal itself. And this, frankly, is just a little bit annoying. (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document that. Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR? No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR, "my" /22 is gone. So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged") 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

Well said! Regards, Radu Gheorghiu On 06/20/2016 01:53 PM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

Hi Gert,

I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than the proposer :)

...

On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> [...] (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document that. Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR? legally?

...

No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR, "my" /22 is gone. So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged") If things would be so simple...

Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are not recorded in the registry.

While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean that these will not trade.

I have been extremely happy with the very simple (non-restrictive) transfer policy that we have had for years and I think this proposal will only complicate things.

Yet an other colour of the IPv4 space is something we should avoid. Numbers are numbers and giving them colours - legacy, anycast, PA, PI -, and now non-transferable is something we as a community should avoid. And if it were to still work on the IPv4 policy, I would do my best to clean all these colours away and keep only one.

The M&As have been an issue for years and these will become the next issue if this proposal gets accepted. I also await the response from the NCC before commenting further on this issue.

I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted, this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it is implemented.

...

Gert Doering -- APWG chair /elvis

Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 01:53:29PM +0300, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

I am surprised to see that you are defending this proposal more than the proposer :)

I'm trying to not side either way, but the poor quality of some of the arguments is annoying me enough to try to counter them.

...

On Jun 20, 2016, at 12:33, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> [...] (Regarding the DB accuracy, I think Sander has answered this upthread in a way I find convincing: if trading for these /22s is limited, of course someone who trades "under the desk" will not be able to update the registry, so potentially someone else uses the /22 and can not document that. Would I buy a /22 that I can not legally transfer into my LIR? legally?

"according to the rules that govern transfers" - make it "formally" or "contractually" or whatever word you like more.

...

No, because I'm all at the mercy of the seller - if he closes his LIR, "my" /22 is gone. So I'd go and find a unencumbed /22 on the market - and in my book, this would mean "mission accomplished, trading discouraged")

If things would be so simple...

Look at what's happening in ARIN. Lots of transfers (some very large ones as well) are done by means of financial/contractual artifices (furures contracts and such) avoiding the needs based criteria from the policy. Millions of IPs seem to change hands but the transfer are not recorded in the registry.

While *you* would not trade a 'last allocated' block, it does not mean that these will not trade.

Well, in that case I can only say "I recommend this to all my competitors" - it would be tremendously silly to buy a /22 that can not be registered to my company, and that the NCC *will* request back (= no route objects, no reverse DNS, no inetnums) if the seller's LIR is closed. Someone buying addresses on the market should understand the market they are operating in - and if not, they should hire a broker to make sure that they will get value for their money. [..]

I also do not think it's ok to have a policy change the status of a resource 'in the middle of the game' and think that even if accepted, this proposal should cause a change of status only from the moment it is implemented.

Where was that argument when transfers were initially allowed? Following this argument, we couldn't do any policy changes that affect future actions for pre-existing allocations or assignments. Funny that we could do so in the past just fine. 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, Do we actually know how many such instances exists where someone spawned LIRs for profit? I don't care how many LIRs a company has spawned, I care if they did it for profit. I doubt we have any idea. To be honest I think we are debating a policy here based on the supposition that there are a lot of LIRs doing this, without any actual proof. And even if they did it for profit, it's not like the IPs are going in some other galaxy. They remain in the RIPE region part of some LIR. That LIR will eventually either close, or transfer their IPv4. So it's not like the IPv4 is vanishing. I don't see where the problem is. The IPv4 pool is going to be depleted sooner or later, no matter what policy we come up to meanwhile. What then? The real solution is to stop changing policy, or lower the "/22" allocation size to "/24". This will provide a good enough start in terms of IPv4 resources, and the newly established LIRs are free to get their extra IPv4 from somewhere else, just like they are free to get their resources from somewhere else when they start with just a "/22". Regards, Radu Gheorghiu On 06/20/2016 12:16 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:56:47PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:

...

...

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain. When an allocation is not transferable to another member, one day they need to be returned to RIPE NCC. Yes. But that's a side effect of not allowing transfers of these /22s.

Basically, the discussion *should* try to focus on this point, and not run around the mill with non-sensical arguments.

- do we want to restrict trading of "last /8 policy" /22s, yes or no?

If we want restrictions, then this will have consequences (like, if you close your LIR and are not selling off the whole business, the /22 will be returned).

If we want *no* restrictions, this will also have consequences - namely, some (few) people making money based on resources other folks have set aside to be there for the long-term good of the RIPE region, which many others see as immoral and abusive.

But do not complain about the potential consequences, please just answer the question.

Gert Doering -- NetMaster

Hi. I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all - members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it again. The IPs aren't burn (it is not oil or gas) even some one sell it. Simply the owner is some LIR but not the NCC. May be it will increase the price, no more. But the NCC wants to have exclusive rights to sell it (but RIPE is not organisation to make profit or I am wrong? :) ) and creates new proposals. 2016-06-20 11:42 GMT+03:00 Gert Doering <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 11:39:30PM +1000, Arash Naderpour wrote:

...

...

THERE. IS. NO. IPv4. LEFT!

And is that the reason policy is trying to return only smallest allocations and let the big allocation holders continue selling their ones?

This policy is not about "return allocations", but about reducing the burn rate by reserving /22s for those who actually want to run a network with it, instead of trade away quickly for a short gain.

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

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi.

I think there is 2015-01 and it is enough to prevent reselling for undistributed 185./8 and others proposals make more problems for all - members, RIPE stuff, member's customers. E.g. is multiple accoutns when executive board suspend it and then asked to vote to allow it again. The IPs aren't burn (it is not oil or gas) even some one sell it. Simply the owner is some LIR but not the NCC. May be it will increase the price, no more. But the NCC wants to have exclusive rights to sell it (but RIPE is not organisation to make profit or I am wrong? :) ) and creates new proposals.

You are wrong in the sense of "not even wrong". 1) It's not about 185/8 2) It's not "burning" as in setting fire to something, but as in further reducing the available address space for registration. 3) You've got the whole "ownership" thing mixed up. 4) You've got the whole "rights to sell" thing mixed up. 5) You've got the whole "make profit" thing mixed up. -- Jan

Maybe I’m misunderstanding this policy, so can you please help me with following example? Company A already bought and IPv4 allocation from company B in 2014, the allocation was made originally as a last /22 to company B in 2013. None of them are new-comers and have become member before 2012. My understanding from 2016-03 is that over a night that /22 allocation will be “FINAL ALLOCATION” (because it was originally allocated by RIPE NCC after a certain date) and company A cannot transfer it to any other member if one day they don’t need it. (and returning that /22 to RIPE NCC is the only option for them if they want to close their business in the future) Can you please correct me if I’m wrong? Thanks, Arash Naderpour

Tomasz Śląski @ KEBAB wrote:

Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned the addresses to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met anyone who did.

rather than speculating, maybe someone from the RIPE NCC could provide information on how much address space has been returned to the registry over the last couple of years? Nick

Il 16/06/2016 17:45, Uros Gaber ha scritto:

The latest auctions by the Ministry for children, education and gender equality - national agency for learning and IT (https://ipv4.stil.dk/) show a "good" example of "returning" the address space to the RIPE pool. wonderful

And if these kind of members would actually return the space then I think these kind of proposals would have no meaning.

Kind regards, Uros Gaber

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:

Tomasz Śląski @ KEBAB wrote: > Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned the addresses > to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met anyone who did.

rather than speculating, maybe someone from the RIPE NCC could provide information on how much address space has been returned to the registry over the last couple of years?

Nick

-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Nick, Radu and colleagues, Thank you for raising this question. On 2016-06-16 17:28:51 CET, Nick Hilliard wrote:

rather than speculating, maybe someone from the RIPE NCC could provide information on how much address space has been returned to the registry over the last couple of years?

The overall number that Radu calculated is almost correct. Around 4.5 million IPs have been returned since we reached the last /8 in September 2012. Looking at LIRs only, around 1.66 million IPs have been returned by our members. This consists of around 1.6 million allocated addresses and 63,000 assigned addresses from 930 different LIRs. The majority of these returns came from the closure of LIR accounts. After a quarantine period, returned address space is added to our available IPv4 pool and will be allocated according to the policy. I hope this helps. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Hi To best of my knowledge, most of large return has been done by none profit org. Most for profit org and some gov on the other hand, are choosing to sell it

On 16 Jun 2016, at 18:17, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:

Tomasz Slaski wrote:

[...]

...

Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned the addresses to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met anyone who did.

I'm neither supporting nor opposing the proposed policy. However, I note that there are a number of cases where organizations with large blocks of IPv4 address space they no longer need have returned that space. Several /8s were returned to global pool of unallocated IPv4 address space in 2007 and 2008. More recently, Interop returned more than 99% of a /8 to ARIN:

https://www.arin.net/announcements/2010/20101020.html

Kind regards,

Leo Vegoda

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 05:14:46PM +0200, "Tomasz ?l?ski @ KEBAB" wrote:

Jim, please stop kidding. Do you know anyone, who returned the addresses to RIPE? In my 25 year career in IT I have not met anyone who did.

I returned a private /24 PI a long time ago. Knowing what I do now, I wouldn't have done it, though. cheers, Sascha Luck

On 16 Jun 2016, at 15:14, Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> wrote: I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

Remco, all, I think further tweaks are needed. Sorry. First, I think it would be helpful if there was a clear statement in the policy text that the rule of one LIR, one /22 applies to ALL future allocations made by the NCC and not just those which are made out of 185/8. There has been some confusion that the “last /8 policy” -- yes, a better name is needed -- only applies to allocations from 185/8. Second, stating that a final /22 cannot be transferred seems over-restrictive. Although I agree with the proposal’s intention that LIR’s can’t/shouldn't sell their last ever /22, that does appear to prevent types of transfer that probably should be allowed: for instance LIR mergers/acquisitions or reorganisations. It might also be an idea to say that if an LIR doesn’t have ALLOCATED FINAL space and somehow acquires an LIR which does have one of those /22s, the acquiring LIR can’t get an allocation of ALLOCATED FINAL space because it now has one of these as a result of the merger/acquisition/whatever.

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:15:34PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

M&As are not "transfers according to policy".

More precisely, not *yet*. 2015-04 is attempting to change that (in an, IMO, somewhat unethical way) rgds, Sascha Luck

Hi Remco, On 6/16/16 6:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

Remco van Mook wrote:

...

I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

...

Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA This is probably useful. It would also probably be useful to define a term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines. Totally not as catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy. while updating this to a form where it would be very clear is something I applaud, I do not think it is a must.

...

Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes Neutral on this. People will do what they are going to do, even if it's short-sighted. a good addition, also feeling neutral on telling LIRs what to use the resources for.

...

Bans transfers of final /22 allocations Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the transferability of an INETNUM I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources. Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate registry information. could not have said it better. While this is an interesting attempt, it will only drive _some_ transfers to the underground. Bad idea from my

Still hate it, kill it! point of view. Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no longer transferable. I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively, you should have thought of this in 2012 before the 'run out'.

Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.

+1

Nick

elvis

+1 Am 16.06.2016 um 22:23 schrieb Storch Matei:

Hi Elvis and all,

I fully agree with your reason for not agreeing with this proposal, mainly the fact that it acts retroactively. The only problem I see with your reason is that it would have fully applied to 2015-01, in the exact same manner. LIRs received an allocation knowing they will be able to transfer it if needed/wanted, and all of a sudden, they became nontransferable for 2 years, aplicable to resources already allocated. If the policy only applied to resources allocated after the adoption of the policy, there would have been no such problem. Difference of course is that with this proposal, the final allocation will NEVER be transferable via the RIPE standard transfer process. And in this case, the aplicability to only the resources allocated after the adoption is a no-go in my opinion, because it will cause tons of confusion and will be very difficult for RIPE NCC to manage.

So, just to reiterate, this policy wants to change the rules of the "game" during the game, which is not ok at all. Since at the time of the allocation (let's say 20th september 2012) these allocations didn't have a special status (except beeing the last allocation received by that LIR from RIPE) and were treated exactly like any other resources previously allocated, this must not ever change. Regardless of the reasons behind the request for the final /22, at the moment of allocation, they were "normal" resources. If in the meantime the LIR does not have a use for those resources anymore, or just considers that it's a better business to cash-in 7-10k euro, they are entitled to do so. Just like with legacy resource holders, they were allocated resources before the RIRs, and they were entitled to keep those resources per the initial conditions of allocation and transfer them, etc.

Matei Storch

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Elvis Daniel Velea Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 21:03 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2016-03 Discussion Period extended until 15 July 2016 (Locking Down the Final /8 Policy)

Hi Remco,

On 6/16/16 6:39 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:

...

Remco van Mook wrote:

...

I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version. Still hate it, kill it!

...

...

Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA This is probably useful. It would also probably be useful to define a term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines. Totally not as catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy. while updating this to a form where it would be very clear is something I applaud, I do not think it is a must. Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes Neutral on this. People will do what they are going to do, even if it's short-sighted. a good addition, also feeling neutral on telling LIRs what to use the resources for. Bans transfers of final /22 allocations Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the transferability of an INETNUM I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources. Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate registry information. could not have said it better. While this is an interesting attempt, it will only drive _some_ transfers to the underground. Bad idea from my point of view.

Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no longer transferable. I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively, you should have thought of this in 2012 before the 'run out'.

...

Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool. +1 Nick

elvis

* Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis@velea.eu>

...

Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no longer transferable. Elvis, while there are valid arguments against this proposal, this is not one of them.

If it was, then we could essentially just disband the AP-GW as pretty much every single policy proposal ever made would "apply retroactively". Including the ones that made various forms of transfers possible in the first place; suddenly, many old non-transferable blocks were "retroactively" changed to become transferable.

Note that the RIPE NCC SSA says:

...

Article 6 – Compliance

6.1 The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents. The RIPE Policies and the RIPE NCC procedural documents are publicly available from the RIPE NCC Document Store. These documents, which may be revised and updated from time to time, form an integral part of and apply fully to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement. A member who believes that transferability is an immutable and everlasting property of address space has not read what they've signed.

If this proposal truly "applied retroactively" with regards to transfers, it would have had to annul all the transfers *made prior to its adoption* and stated the previously transferred address space was to be forcibly returned to its original holder or the NCC.

...

I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied retroactively" no less than this one. I don't think 2015-01 apply retroactively. I think allocation made before implementation of 2015-01 are free from

Hi, Il 17/06/2016 07:41, Tore Anderson ha scritto: limitations. I'll open a ticket about it and check and let you know.

Anyway. I withdraw my earlier objection to 2016-03. I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea or worth the trouble, but if the community really wants to go down this road I won't try to block the path. Consider me neutral/abstaining.

Tore

regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Tore, Hi Elvis, I opened the ticket and I can confirm Tore clarification on that. Il 17/06/2016 08:09, Riccardo Gori ha scritto:

Hi,

Il 17/06/2016 07:41, Tore Anderson ha scritto:

...

* Elvis Daniel Velea<elvis@velea.eu>

...

Additionally, it would still apply retroactively and people which since 2012 until 'yesterday' were allocated PA/transferable IPs (2 years after the moment of the allocation) will end up with an allocation that is no longer transferable. Elvis, while there are valid arguments against this proposal, this is not one of them.

If it was, then we could essentially just disband the AP-GW as pretty much every single policy proposal ever made would "apply retroactively". Including the ones that made various forms of transfers possible in the first place; suddenly, many old non-transferable blocks were "retroactively" changed to become transferable.

Note that the RIPE NCC SSA says:

...

Article 6 – Compliance

6.1 The Member acknowledges applicability of, and adheres to, the RIPE Policies and RIPE NCC procedural documents. The RIPE Policies and the RIPE NCC procedural documents are publicly available from the RIPE NCC Document Store. These documents, which may be revised and updated from time to time, form an integral part of and apply fully to the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement. A member who believes that transferability is an immutable and everlasting property of address space has not read what they've signed.

If this proposal truly "applied retroactively" with regards to transfers, it would have had to annul all the transfers *made prior to its adoption* and stated the previously transferred address space was to be forcibly returned to its original holder or the NCC.

Alrticle 6: This is the part of the agreement I like most 'cause confirms that community policies can change everything even on already allocated space. Only as fantasy examples: forbid transfer, return space or annual fees per held IP . I think the community alway choosed to go the esiest and fairier path. Elvis policy extended the current 24 months restriction to all PA space held by members and fixed the loophole of newly allocated that avoided the restriction. I consider it fair.

...

...

I do not like policy proposals that apply retroactively Uhm, so what about your 2015-01 proposal then? That one "applied retroactively" no less than this one.

I don't think 2015-01 apply retroactively. I think allocation made before implementation of 2015-01 are free from limitations. I'll open a ticket about it and check and let you know. Confirmed Tore point.

...

Anyway. I withdraw my earlier objection to 2016-03. I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea or worth the trouble, but if the community really wants to go down this road I won't try to block the path. Consider me neutral/abstaining.

Tore

regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail:rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile:https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285

-------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying toinfo@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:40:38PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

I think, it is time to withdraw this proposal due to we haven't reached the consensus.

This is not your call to make. 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 Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 09:10:15PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

I just looked at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/current-proposals/current-policy-p... no more.

It is time to make a *decision*, this is true. Whether or not the decision is to withdraw or not, or whether we have reached (rough) consensus is the WG chairs job, not yours. 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 see he said "I think". I think list exists because everyone should be left free to express his own opinion, that's not taking decision. regards Riccardo Il 21/07/2016 20:07, Gert Doering ha scritto:

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 08:40:38PM +0300, Aleksey Bulgakov wrote:

...

I think, it is time to withdraw this proposal due to we haven't reached the consensus. This is not your call to make.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Il 16/06/2016 17:39, Nick Hilliard ha scritto:

Remco van Mook wrote:

...

Explicitly states that the current IPv4 allocation policy applies to all available IPv4 address space held by the RIPE NCC that has not been reserved or marked to be returned to IANA This is probably useful. It would also probably be useful to define a term to replace the name "last /8" so that it can be referred to specifically in the policy documentation, e.g. "the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool" or something along those lines. Totally not as catchy as "the last /8", but sadly that is the nature of policy. I agree too this can be useful. I think even Jim can agree. We had a quick chat about it in Copenhagen. I even wrote apwg chair about a new proposal simply add this clarification but stopped since Marco noticed was already in this unacceptable 2016-03.

...

Adds a consideration to the IPv4 allocation policy that the LIR should conserve whole or part of their final /22 allocation for interoperability purposes Neutral on this. People will do what they are going to do, even if it's short-sighted.

...

Bans transfers of final /22 allocations Changes the “status”field in the RIPE Database to reflect the transferability of an INETNUM I'm against this because it conflicts with the core purpose of the RIPE registry, which is to ensure accurate registration of resources. Formally banning transfers will not stop transfers; it will only stop those transfers from being registered which will lead to inaccurate registry information.

Overall, I am against the core proposal, namely banning transfers from the remaining unallocated ipv4 pool.

completely agree

Nick

-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi all again Il 16/06/2016 17:44, Sascha Luck [ml] ha scritto:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

...

I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

Nope, still hate it, kill it with fire. completely agree

...

Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

There are many non-speculative reasons why a LIR might want to transfer resources to another. There are also many LIRs now who have (or *will have* if this passes) no ipv4 resources other than this ALLOCATED FINAL space. these LIRs are bascially damned to forever (or until ipv6 is ubiquitous, whichever happens first) to not change their organisational structure in any way for fear of losing even this allocation.

This can only lead to a proliferation of LIRs for resource protection purposes, a lot of painful and unneccessary re-numbering and, ultimately, to unrecorded "black market" trading of resources - something the "last /8" policy was specifically intended to prevent.

Disclaimer: Nothing in shis statement shall be construed as accepting the right of the "community" to regulate M&A or any other business decisions a LIR may or may not make. completely agree with Sascha

rgds, Sascha Luck

-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

* Remco van Mook <remco.vanmook@gmail.com> [2016-06-16 16:18]:

Thank you Marco.

Dear all,

I would encourage everyone to carefully read this second version (and not just respond "no, still hate it, kill it with fire") as it is quite different from the first version.

Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

Hello, I support the proposal. The /22 policy was made so that new LIRs can implement transition methods from IPv4 to IPv6. If the LIR merges or is acquired they can keep the space. If they stop business they don't need the transition methods any more because *they're no longer in business*. I'm aware that this is not an ideal solution but I think it will make it more difficult to game the system for profit. I'm saying this fully aware that I and others would have a lot less headaches if we would just remove the limits of the last /8 policy and let everything go down in flames. Our LIR has enough address space left but right now I still have it in me to try making sure that new LIRs get some address space that is useful for them to provide services. NOT for some shadow LIRs that just want to make profit from the space. If you're doing this you get no sympathy from me. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

If you will look into the future - all last 185 will be FINAL. And all LIRs will have to return the space or use it and pay to RIPE for usage even they work as with PIs as PI. reserved space also will be FINAL. But then after some due to space exchange under ripe more and more space will become FINAL. So transfer policy will conflict with the space. My opinion - just make easier for new companies to get IPs until RIPE has it and RIPE has enough. So I don't understand why to make life harder but not easier. Yuri@NTX On 18.06.2016 23:45, Ondřej Caletka wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

...

Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

Hello list,

I support this version of 2016-03. I think the allocations made after entering the post-depletion phase (that could be maybe a better name than the "last /8") should be either used for operating a network or returned to RIPE NCC.

Since there used to be a needs-based policy for pre-depletion allocations, stockpiling addresses for the sole purpose of selling them in the future was not as trivial as it is now. One had to not only have enough money but also cheat in the needs evaluation process.Now, when the needs-based approach is gone, we need something else to conserve at least something for new players for as long as possible.

I also like the idea of special status "ALLOCATED FINAL". I think it is a good starting point for the AGM to adopt a charging scheme which would require additional recurring fee for LIRs holding more than one such allocation. This is IMHO the only way how to prevent people from opening new LIRs as a better alternative to the IPv4 market.

Hello, even I uderstand motivation, I cannot aggre with Ondrej. IP address was, is and always will be only technical resource - and we're loosing that point in APWG.... And such policy is quite unfair to "new" LIRs (holding only last /22) - as it's trying to revoke rights, which have "old" LIRs holding old allocatios before "last /8" policy was introduced. I think we cannot make difference between "old" and "new" allocations - in terms of last /8 policy, where we're taking care only about address space allocated after certain date. There's RIPE analysis about address really available: https://labs.ripe.net/Members/marco_schmidt/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-last... - and I don't undersand such "panic", as numbers about space available are pretty clear... Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's not fair. Motivation mentioned above is shift movement to IPv6 - but, basically holders of smaller/never allocations have IPv6 implemented already (or at least are trying to implement) - or in IPv4, they have deployments of CGNAT solutions already. There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing, policy will ban then? My point is simple - there should be ONLY ONE POLICY - independent on time of allocation. Such policy must limit not only new LIRs (using addresses from last /8), but also old LIRs holding addresses from old allocations. And if we really want to reclaim some address space, we should review current allocations - in terms of current situation in IPv4 world. With regards, Daniel On 18.06.16 22:45, Ondřej Caletka wrote:

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 04:14:08PM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:

...

Basically the only restriction left is to disallow transfers on all "last /8 space"* going forward, and there is some language added to the policy that tries to raise awareness that if you just go and parcel out that entire allocation to endusers, you might end up feeling a little bit silly a couple of years from now.

Hello list,

I support this version of 2016-03. I think the allocations made after entering the post-depletion phase (that could be maybe a better name than the "last /8") should be either used for operating a network or returned to RIPE NCC.

Since there used to be a needs-based policy for pre-depletion allocations, stockpiling addresses for the sole purpose of selling them in the future was not as trivial as it is now. One had to not only have enough money but also cheat in the needs evaluation process.Now, when the needs-based approach is gone, we need something else to conserve at least something for new players for as long as possible.

I also like the idea of special status "ALLOCATED FINAL". I think it is a good starting point for the AGM to adopt a charging scheme which would require additional recurring fee for LIRs holding more than one such allocation. This is IMHO the only way how to prevent people from opening new LIRs as a better alternative to the IPv4 market.

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 11:38 PM, Daniel Suchy <danny@danysek.cz> wrote:

Hello,

Hello,

Do we really want do block new organisations with new allocations, but allow old (happy) one to do anything with addresses tehy have...? That's not fair.

I'm afraid that "fair" in that regard, is impossible to achieve.

There're organisations, which have large allocations and they're sometimes not taking care - they have enough IPv4 addresses, nothing is pushing them to implement IPv6, or save address space by implementation of some NAT solution. If they decide to sell their business, policy will allow that - but, if "new" resource holder will try similar thing, policy will ban then?

No, the new policy does not ban selling their business (merger/acquisition). My point is simple - there should be ONLY ONE POLICY - independent on

time of allocation. Such policy must limit not only new LIRs (using addresses from last /8), but also old LIRs holding addresses from old allocations.

Why do you want to do that?

And if we really want to reclaim some address space, we should review current allocations - in terms of current situation in IPv4 world.

How do you propose to go about that? -- Jan

Hi Peter,

On 20 Jun 2016, at 15:08 , Peter Koch <pk@DENIC.DE> wrote:

<snip>

while the intent is laudable, making it a requirement under 5.1 mixes the formal part and the informational in a confusing way. That said, does "should reserve at least part of this allocation for interoperability with networks that are only reachable using IPv4" mean "should assign at least part of this allocation ... to itself"?

That mix is for all it's pros and cons, intentional. LIRs 'must' be informed (the must part of that point) about the special condition this block is being allocated in, much in the same way as they 'must' make assignments from the allocation - whether to customers, self or infrastructure. The 'should' part is phrased in such a way that because I didn't want an explicit reference to any other standard or technology in the IPv4 allocation policy. Whether the space is used for IPv6 migration or whatever protocol next century makes no difference, if you want to talk to IPv4 here's the block of space to do that with.

And further along the lines of educational text: the references in section need some re-adjustment (this isn't new in 2.0, but for good housekeeping) since RFC 3330 has been finally obsoleted by RFC 6890 (and may or may not be applicable anyway) and RFC 2993 isn't really the final word on NAT any more, especially with that earlier remark on "for interoperability with networks that are only reachable using IPv4".

Noted.

The clarification part remains complicated because of indirections: 5.3 refers to 5.1 only, but the new "ALLOCATED FINAL" then extends the validity across the remaining sections. I'd suggest to give up 5.3 and merge the new text with the final paragraph of 5.2 accordingly.

The IPv4 allocation policy as it stands is not what I'd call a thing of beauty, and if rewritten in its entirety should probably look a lot different. The way I see it, paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 serve different purposes, and merging them removes that bit of much needed clarity. To be clear - it's not my intention to rewrite the whole policy; just adding some bits and pieces that I felt were needed. If I can clean up a paragraph that I'm editing anyway, so much the better. Thanks for your feedback. Best regards Remco

just one, even my multiple replies are for my one opinion. regards Riccardo Il 16/06/2016 23:47, Nick Hilliard ha scritto:

Riccardo Gori wrote:

...

I strongly, strongly and again strongly oppose this proposal. does this count for three votes?

Nick

-- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Riccardo, I'm sorry, but there is some FUD here that I need to address. Again: I don't care whether this policy gets consensus or not, but I do care about the quality of the arguments. That is what Gert and/or I have to base consensus on later.

A new entrant would see his investments vanified

Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.

by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012 With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it.

No, new LIRs get exactly the same "free" /22 as before. Only now they can not transfer/sell it, they can use it to run their network with. That is not pushing new LIRs out of the market. Unless your business is to sell off address space. In that case: that is what this proposal is trying to prevent, so the remaining address space is saved for organisations that run networks.

I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I am pretty sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP Transfert policies were accepted even 'cause in case of network acquisition or M&A or many other cases renumbering customers is very difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources is the most easy way to keep consistence on database.

We still have M&A for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. That is not affected by this policy proposal.

We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making them able to keep their business running!

An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.

How can my new LIR company can compete in the market going to its customer stating "be aware that the assignement I giving you if I sell my company will be returned and you need to find a new LIR and renumber your network,

Selling your company is M&A. That is unaffected by this policy proposal (important change in version 2), so no problem anymore.

and sorry most important... I will never be able to sell you this block or part of it

Where did this idea of selling customers parts of an LIRs PA space come from? The receiver of a (part of a) PA allocation has to be an LIR themselves and therefore can get their own /22 for free. Even if you want this business model then surely setting up an LIR for a customer and getting a /22 for them provides much more than selling off a part of your own /22 ever can.

End users will run far away from every new LIR choosing as default a LIR made before 09/2012. This creates barrier to ingress in the market.

Why? The LIR still has their PA allocation, can use it to provide service to customers etc. Nobody is taking a PA allocation away from the LIR.

The full control of IP market will be in the hand of LIR (and PI holders) made before 09/2012. Barriers to ingress in the market.

I'm sorry, I don't care about "the IP market". Its only purpose is to get addresses to LIRs that need them. The last /22 allocation provides new LIRs with a free block to start running their network with, not to provide them with a free asset that they can then sell for profit. RIPE is about running networks.

This is not leaving space to new entrants this is assuring control of IP market today.

New entrants become an LIR and get their /22. After that they can participate in the market of getting unused address space back in use all they want. It's not the RIPE community's job to provide them with new stuff they can sell. Everybody can become an LIR. Those thinking about selling parts of their /22 should think about what they are doing. If they want to help customers and provide a good service to them: help them set up an LIR if they need to (which they would also need to do to be able to receive a PA transfer). Get them their own /22 that no-one can take away from them.

Again: If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. I am pretty sure that everyone here agree that this is not possibile...

This is not a return policy proposal, this is a policy proposal that tries to stop people from using the scarce IPv4 resources that the RIPE NCC has left for their own profit instead of for the good of the community.

About 5.1. 4. plase don't don't don't state in the policy that /22 is for "transition purposes" In 2015-05 we tried to introduce ripeness stars and IPv6 deployment as a requirement for an additional /22 and at Address Policy Working Group in Copenhagen last 25/05 some of you experienced explained to me publically that we can't force old or new LIRs to deploy IPv6 and this is even the reason why the IPv6 requirement was removed from "last /8" allocation policy. Someone else said it's LIR responsability to choose how to use space... IPv6 will come....bla bla bla. You teached, I learned.

Apparently there are still lots of people that don't understand that the IPv4 barrel is as good as empty. I have to admit that I do sympathise with efforts to get rid of this FUD that IPv4 can still be "business as usual". Cheers, Sander

Hi Riccardo,

...

...

A new entrant would see his investments vanified

Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.

About investments: To set up my ISP I needed networking, infrastructure, IP transit, hosting services, IP addresses. I payed a signup fee and that was an investement to be an LIR and do better business as an ISP. I pay annualy a membership fees and this is part of the costs to run the business. if I look to my management server (a couple of server hotsed outside my network) I see that I pay 16 € per month for a /29 as part of the contract with my hosting provider... so actually yes IP space is a small part of the investements or costs in any case.

You're taking this out of context. We're talking about 2016-03 here. Everything you mention is about the cost of running an ISP. This proposal doesn't change a thing for that: you still get your /22. The only thing that changes is that you can't sell it.

About transferts: The same is today. Main reasons for a transfert are not renumbering and database consistence or unused IPs? Unused Ips is not my case I have so few. This proposal puts the new LIRs in a worse condition even it already is. We are not SICK, we are late entrants. I don't see any reason to create CLASS-E "unusable LIRs" to keep them far from the IP market old LIRs created.

What are you talking about? The only thing this proposal prevents is from selling a single /22. Jumping from there to "unusable LIRs" makes no sense.

Are you really thinking that I came out with a proposal like 2015-05 to catch more IPs to sell them?

We're not talking about 2015-05 here...

I am not selling IPs 'cause i need them for assignements to customers

In that case this policy proposal doesn't change anything for you.

but the first thing my they ask me when I propose consulting for IPv6 trasnition is "can I have the assigned space for me one day to keep on running the network"

And the answer to that has always been "no". Please read section 7 of https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-649. It contains this text: """ Clear contractual arrangements are mandatory for PA space. End Users requesting PA space must be given this or a similar warning: Assignment of this IP space is valid as long as the criteria for the original assignment are met and only for the duration of the service agreement between yourself and us. We have the right to reassign the address space to another user upon termination of this agreement or an agreed period thereafter. This means that you will have to re-configure the addresses of all equipment using this IP space if you continue to require global uniqueness of those addresses. """

...

We still have M&A for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. That is not affected by this policy proposal. The evidence of a disvantage of newcomers is still there.

How? All that this proposal limits is them selling their /22, which you keep telling me is not your intention.

Black market will substitute normal transfers regulations

Please read my reply to Nick Hilliard two days ago, we were discussing the same issue and I am not yet sure that this is true.

and creative implementations of M&A will come to overcome the policy,

M&A are explicitly allowed, based on feedback from the working group.

transparency will go far from database and statistics and transfert evidence. You want all of this?

I wouldn't want that, but I cannot see how you reach that conclusion...

...

...

We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making them able to keep their business running!

An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.

Again, selling PA is out there and there are many here on the list proud of it. We were in Bucarest celebrating this good manner of JUMP Management making space available to their end users signin up as new members.

Second: avoid my customers to sign up and waste a /22 while needing only a /24 was exacly the purpose of 2015-05 I tried to explain everyone (with Radu who shared the same point about this) that many customers are signin up wasting space just for the needing of a /24.

Then assign /24s, or even smaller, to your customers from your PA allocation. That is what it is for!

This customer is mine not yours. And what you want me to have no address space to serve him so we can let him create his own LIR? He is in a completely different kind of business nothing to deal with internet but the use!!!!

And this is related to you not being able to sell your /22 anymore under this policy proposal in what way exactly?

This means put every newcomer LIRs after 14/09/2012 out of the market

You keep saying that, but not being able to sell your /22 really doesn't do that.

Just as an example? transition Sander, I repeated more than one time in this list that I have customers that ask for a /24 and IPv6 transition consulting services to run their new datacenter or multihome their networks. Perfect legitimate needing.

Again: you have a PA allocation, make assignments from it. This has nothing to do with selling your /22.

Do I really need to explain any detail on the list about my business model? Want to join the smallest business? I don't think RIPE NCC need to take care of mine small business. I am really disappointed about you are treating us (new comers LIR after 14/09/2015).

Excuse me? This community has written policy so that you can have a /22 for free with your LIR membership instead of nothing.

We don't force anything: we don't force LIRs or end user use IPv6 bla bla bla.

You are being confronted with the fact that IPv4 has run out for normal business purposes. Yes, that is annoying. You need to either organise your network infrastructure in such a way that you minimise the amount of IPv4 addresses you need, and if you still need more addresses you'll have to find someone who will transfer them to you. Still: 2016-03 doesn't change anything in that regard.

Proposing introducing only a light control on IPv6 deployment I was adviced that every LIR is free to do what he need with space publically at RIPE72.

Yes, every LIR is free to do whatever they wish, and that includes the freedom of dealing with the consequences. It does not entitle anybody to use their addresses and then come for more. It means that it is up to each LIR to choose how they deal with the limited number of addresses they have.

...

Why? The LIR still has their PA allocation, can use it to provide service to customers etc. Nobody is taking a PA allocation away from the LIR. I am in doubt if RIPE NCC will go legal or illegal forcing companies to keep running or closing LIRs.

Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here.

IP market is there. I would have preffered an IPv4 transfert model without it but if it has been approved so we should care about it.

There is an IPv4 market. This working group allowed it so that there was an incentive to get unused address space back in use. This working group also created the policy that gives you a /22 now, so that new entrants can start running your network without having to go to that market immediately. The only thing 2016-03 is doing (as of version 2) is to stop people from getting /22s to sell them on. People running a network and requesting a /22 for themselves without the intention of selling it (as you assure us you are) will not be impacted by this proposal.

This is higher the disadvantage to get rid of newcomers for the reason explained above.

"to get rid of newcomers"? No idea what you are talking about...

...

Apparently there are still lots of people that don't understand that the IPv4 barrel is as good as empty. I have to admit that I do sympathise with efforts to get rid of this FUD that IPv4 can still be "business as usual". Sorry my english is not so good and I didn't understood that last comment.

It means that, as you have discovered, you can't just run IPv4 networks like it was done 5 or 10 years ago. Cheers, Sander

Hi Stefan,

On 17 Jun 2016, at 19:32 , Stefan Prager <contact@prager-it.com> wrote:

There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after 14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out before the 15th September 2012. There is also no mention in the respective policies, as was mentioned during one of the talks at RIPE-72 in Denmark, that allocations received after the 14th September 2012 are to be used for the sole purpose of providing legacy connections to IPv4 networks.

Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward any longer than it already has as it would seek to single out already heavily disadvantaged members even more for the sole reason that they happen to be holding an allocation received after the 14th September 2012.

Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the change itself is not part of current policy? Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only have received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by the community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to that purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013. Remco heavily disadvantaged member

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> [2016-06-17 22:21]:

No, more people than you expected oppose it because you make an explicit reference to allocation made after a certain date in the past: <snip> All allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs after 14 September 2012 will be marked in the RIPE Database as “ALLOCATED FINAL”. </snip>

This is the date when the last /8 policy kicked in. It could also say "all blocks allocated by the last /8 policy" or some wording like that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?

Just remove "after 14 September 2012" and you ban all transfers. Not necessarily a bad idea.

That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and why?

...

Also, those "heavily disadvantaged members" as you describe them, only have received address space thanks to a particularly selfless decision by the community at the time to dedicate the last remaining address space to that purpose, rather than just blowing through it by early 2013.

Like in "we won't kill you with a bullet in the head, we will kill you by letting you slowly bleed to death". Thanks. Now you try to regulate how you are allowed (or not) to heal yourself.

We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> [2016-06-18 00:06]:

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 22:37, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:

...

that. You must know that? Why does the date bother you?

Because it is in the past.

Yesterday is in the past but it doesn't bother me because today is weekend. *Why* does it bother you?

...

That would revert us to back to pre-market policy. Who would want that and why?

Those that would like all allocations to be treated the same.

Which would make us run out in a few days. We've discussed this multiple times.

...

We can only heal everyone by moving to IPv6. There is no cure in IPv4 land.

Just stop telling me how to heal. I like your new diet, I practice it myself, but for the moment it is far from allowing me to live. In order to survive I need extras that can only be found in limited quantities. And you want to explain me how you're doing me a favor by increasing the price, while people having stocks (and putting on me pressure that makes the new diet irrelevant) can happily live ever after ... ?

I have no idea what you mean. Seriously. What price?

With 2015-05 I tried to fix the issue, but number of people in the community were against, the reason being mainly "make v4 last as long as possible". For me that reason makes it clear that IPv4 address space is meant to be the new equivalent of gold. Today, IPv6 is only a distraction, in the next years a "possible but unlikely option" and *AN* alternative in the future. But it will not become *THE* solution before IPv4 availability goes to ZERO (0.000000, not 0.1 or 0.01 or even 0.001).

No, not "make v4 last as long as possible" but "make it possible for new entrants to get a small piece of v4 as long as possible". That is a difference. This pool has no impact on the transfer market. Perhaps you can find your "gold" there.

Trying to explain me that on 14 Sept 2022 a new start-up (especially a content-related one) will legitimately need a /22 worth of provider-agnostic IPv4 space *ALONE* (i.e. IPv6 still as optional as today), for me it seems exaggerate. Same thing on 14 Sept 2027 (regardless of the allocation size) is totally unacceptable. Even today I find it hard to hear "save v4 for future entrants" with no incentive (or even obligation) to deploy v6.

I don't exactly understand what you mean. You can't force people to deploy IPv6. A content start-up in 2022 will need to deploy IPv6 to reach the people on the Internet that only have IPv6.

As for the market, today, mid-2016, the market doesn't have any explicit need for IPv6. On the contrary, the market *DOES* require IPv4 explicitly : no v4 = no business (mostly because "static public IPv4 address required"). Best case, very optimistic scenario, "not enough business". At least in my area and most of my market. I would be interested to hear the situation in other areas/markets : do a customer that is only give IPv6 stay with you for more than 1 year by using the service and never calling the support ? I have examples with IPv4-only (they ignore v6, some voluntarily, some not) customers. I also have customers that explicitly request IPv6 to be disabled (most likely because they don't know how to dot it themselves). IPv6 is only acceptable as long as it comes together with IPv4. But that doesn't meant that it will be used.

As I said, you can't force people to adopt IPv6. They will see that they cannot reach their customers very well with IPv4 only in the future. We have many customers that have deployed IPv6 right now exactly because of this. Services that depend on end-to-end reachability (for example some VPN services) don't work very well with DS-Lite and CGNs. As many people have stated, if your new business depends on large quantities of IPv4 space it will fail. That is nothing we can change. Almost all our customers need IPv4 but most of them only need a very small space for addressing their services. If you need more IPv4 you will need to to NAT (CGN) or other workarounds.

So yes, I oppose this policy as I oppose by principle anything that: - changes the rules selectively, especially based on age (my most important no-go for 2016-03)

The date is the activation of the last /8 pool. It has nothing to do with the "age" of the aggregation only the addresses in the pool.

- does it retroactively

As was stated it will not change any transfers retroactively. It will only apply to future transfers as it always has been with transfer policy.

- tries to unbalance even more an already unbalanced market

How does it unbalance the market? It is quite a small pool. Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:11, Sander Steffann wrote:

I'm sorry, but this policy proposal limits selling the last /22 LIRs get from RIPE NCC. How is preventing to sell off your addresses in any way considered "healing yourself"?

It doesn't only limit "selling", it limits "transfer by policy". The M&A has become stricter (pending written confirmation) and pushes some legitimate cases in policy territory. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

On 2016-06-17 21:09:21 CET, Remco van Mook wrote: Let me get this straight - you oppose a proposed change in policy because the change itself is not part of current policy?

I strongly oppose your proposal as it seeks to selectively strip Provider Aggregatable(PA) resource holders of their rights solely justified by your belief that this is how allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012 are supposed to be treated. If you are concerned about people selling off address space allocated after the 14th September 2012 for profit you can propose to change the holding period from two years to three or four years or even introduce a transfer fee like other Regional Internet Registries(RIRs) have in place. Such changes would be just and apply to all Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations and not just to Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations allocated after the 14th September 2012. Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 6:47 PM, NTX NOC <noc@ntx.ru> wrote:

I oppose this proposal too.

1) it limits in rights all new LIRs. As I told in previous discussions LIR stats show the same rate of new LIR registration (250-300 LIRs avg) per month. It's about 40% of 185 is free and that means it will be about 7000 new LIRs in it. That will be enough for 2 years, and after RIPE has reseved space and reserve pool that could not be used for (as I remember 2 years) and another IPv4 space will be given to market. So there are enough space for 4-6 years with current situation.

False. This proposal does not change when space can be used.

2) RIPE here is not to limit abilities of the members to use IPv4 space. RIPE should give opposites. ISPs will take care about all others. But in current case RIPE take part in business significant parts and that's not good.

False. The proposal will not limit the abilities of the members to use IPv4 space.

3) Those policy add new fields and statuses to the database. And this is not good too. System should stay simple and useful. It's not good direction to make it more complex because there are a lot of question to current one system.

This is the only one of your objections that has some merit. -- Jan

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Alexey Galaev <alex@vpsville.ru> wrote:

I’m inclined to disagree with proposal I used to see and I have a different take on it.

We have the main problem: there are no IPv4 address space for all. This proposal just take privilege to old LIR's and limit in rights all new LIR's. But this does not solve the problem. We need to use IPv4 more effectively and stimulate to use IPv6. Why can't we add some payment for ALL current IPv4 blocks?

Because this group decides address policy, not membership fees.

For example, 0.5$/year for IP. All unusable IPv4 will be returned as unprofitable. What the difference between unused space from last /8 and unused space from first /8?

The difference is that there is no "unused space from first /8".

And what the differnce between old and new LIR's?

The difference appears to be that the old LIRs wanted new LIRs to have a chance to exist, while new LIRs do not want new LIRs to exist. -- Jan

Hi, Il 17/06/2016 19:32, Stefan Prager ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

I suggest to just look at the facts here.

Local Internet Registries(LIRs) before the 15th September 2012 have received Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC. Local Internet Registries after the 14th September 2012 have also received Provider Aggregatable(PA) allocations from the RIPE NCC.

There is no mention in the Service Agreement that allocations provided after 14th September 2012 are to be treated differently than those handed out before the 15th September 2012. There is also no mention in the respective policies, as was mentioned during one of the talks at RIPE-72 in Denmark, that allocations received after the 14th September 2012 are to be used for the sole purpose of providing legacy connections to IPv4 networks.

Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward any longer than it already has as it would seek to single out already heavily disadvantaged members even more for the sole reason that they happen to be holding an allocation received after the 14th September 2012.

Fellow policy shaping participants, I believe we have several options here:

a) Modify this proposal to forbid all types of transfers including mergers and acquisitions. This will provide a level playing field for all RIPE NCC members and not single out members solely on the fact that they have received an allocation after the 14th September 2012.

b) Modify this proposal to change the allocation status only for new allocations allocated after this proposal has been accepted and implemented.

c) Declare that no consensus has been reached. I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012)

Additionally I would like to mention that some people seem to think that this proposal will stifle the Local Internet Registry application rate. Let me assure you, it will not. Those of you that believe that this would be the result of the acceptance of this proposal don't fully grasp the reality of the situation we are in.

People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6 resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure their survival and let me assure you they will do just that, just as any business should.

Now where do we go from here? I am in favour of making sensible policies that will provide IPv4 address space for the foreseeable future for new members however this proposal is certainly not a way to achieve that as it does not solve the problem at hand.

I have been giving this quite some thought which is the reason why I will be putting forward the following proposal within the next week:

=> Lower the initial allocation a new RIPE NCC member receives down to a /24.

=> A new member may request an additional /24 every twelve months until he has reached a /22.

For aggregation purposes the RIPE NCC will reserve a consecutive /22 for as long as it is possible so new members may reach a consecutive /22 after they have requested four /24 subnets over a time span of four years. I think this could not be easy standing on current allocation rate but we should ask registration services if techincally possible.

Additionally, as I understand it this is something that needs to be voted on, I would like to lower the initial signup fee of currently 2000,00 Euros down to just 500,00 Euros. In case they request an additional /24 after twelve months they will need to pay an additional instalment of 500,00 Euros which will bring the total amount still to 2000,00 Euros if they requested 4x /24 allocations over a period of 4 years. After each allocation the RIPE NCC will aggregate the allocation whenever possible. Subsequently if a new member requests a second /24 the allocation will be enlarged to a /23. In the end he will be left with one /22 if there is sufficient consecutive address space left to do so.

In cases where the Local Internet Registry does not require any IPv4 address space it should also not be required to pay any fees apart from the membership fees. This proposal is interesting and fair. You have to consider RIPE NCC techincally does not sell space. Your proposal pratically is to change the allocation model in a pay per use and this to me looks really interesting. I would apply this model to the whole IPv4 space. All the already allocated and future allocations. In Remcko view (as in 2016-03 for ALLOCATED-FINAL) starting tomorrow in a pay per use model for everyone is not retroactive 'cause is just a policy change for future year fee memberships. Stockpiles ip will vanish, so much returned space voluntary!!!! IPv4 will last very longer and Remcko will be appy and I'll be happy too. I'll pay every year my membership exacly for what I am assigning to my customers and using

Kind Regards, Stefan Prager

-- Prager-IT e.U. VAT Number: ATU69773505 Austrian Company Register: 438885w

Skype: Prager-IT contact@prager-it.com +43 680 300 99 80

Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016, at 23:48, Sander Steffann wrote:

Two scenarios:

One - Someone opens up an LIR - They get their /22 (free) - They sell it off to another LIR for a profit

Two - That other LIR opens up a second LIR - They get their /22 (free) - They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M&A

Three: - That other LIR opens up a second LIR - They get their /22 (free) - They can no longer apply "M&A" because the definition of "M&A" changed, and they have to do a regular transfer. On a general basis, there may be reasons for which you have to proceed with a regular transfer, other than "get IPs from NCC in order to sell them". It is my understanding, and please someone from RIPE NCC confirm or infirm that in public, that M&A has "slightly" changed recently, and the following operations are no longer M&A: - merging several existing LIRs having the same owner. - re-organisation of address space between the LIRs of a group. - purchasing a company but keeping the purchased company's legal entity (you accountant will give you good reasons for this; if you live in counties like France, your HR will give a few more reasons). - putting together resources of several entities within a group without proceeding with heavy legal and administrative paperwork.

So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs from *selling* their /22 for profit.

For allocations prior to the unlikely application of the policy, it only gives one shot for some business processes. For those made after that hypothetic date, zero. Unless someone from RIPE NCC (registration services or board preferred) can infirm my understanding of recent M&A changes.

currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons

Policy-wise, there are no "wrong reasons". If we decide to create them however, there are two possibilities : - all allocations done *AFTER* the application of "wrong reasons policy" would be concerned. Not those done before. - in addition to the above, if we want to apply this to transferred space, *ALL* space transferred (regardless of the initial allocation date) should be concerned.

examples of issues, not some hand-waving like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that exactly would work. Then we

See my comment above, under reserve of validation from NCC staff: - "old LIR" got a /20 on Aug 2012. They never needed to pay more than one membership fee - "new company #1" /22 on July 2015, another one on Dec 2015 (on a sister company) and anther one on June 2016 (another sister company, since "additional" LIRs is still not officially reinstated). Due to the new M&A rules, the ressources have to be transferred (regular transfer) in order for the LIRs to be consolidated. If 2016-03 goes "live" before July 2017, "new company #1" is stuck with 3 memberships forever for less space the "old LIR". - "new company #2" did similar things to "new company #1", just at different dates (2014/10 and 2015/09) and on the same legal entity. Not having had enough time to sort out the merger due to "have to run a business" they can no longer do the merge today and have to wait until 2016/10, provided that 2015-03 does not go live by then. If for the same reasons the merger is left over until after 2016-03 goes live, they will also have to stay with 2 memberships forever. - "new company #3" which just got their /22 will face the risk of having to pay one membership per /22 forever. -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

Dear Radu, Thank you for your question: On 2016-06-18 01:22:47 CET, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

It is my understanding, and please someone from RIPE NCC confirm or infirm that in public, that M&A has "slightly" changed recently, and the following operations are no longer M&A: - merging several existing LIRs having the same owner. - re-organisation of address space between the LIRs of a group. - purchasing a company but keeping the purchased company's legal entity (you accountant will give you good reasons for this; if you live in counties like France, your HR will give a few more reasons). - putting together resources of several entities within a group without proceeding with heavy legal and administrative paperwork.

Current procedures allow the transfer of resources between LIR accounts belonging to the same member. If the member decides to close one of their LIR accounts after such a transfer, they must first ensure that the annual membership fee has been paid for that account. I would also like to highlight Nigel's email on behalf of the Executive Board in April, which states that mergers, acquisitions, bankruptcies and liquidations must be supported by official documentation issued by national authorities (e.g. Chamber of Commerce): https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ncc-announce/2016-April/001031.html You mention several examples — some of these refer to mergers and acquisitions, while others relate to the movement of Internet resources without an actual merger or acquisition taking place, such as combining the resources of related legal entities without legal and administrative paperwork. Following Nigel's clarification, our merger and acquisitions procedure is only applied to actual mergers and acquisitions. All other resource transfers between separate legal entities must be handled according to the transfer sections in the relevant RIPE Policies (for IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers). I hope this answers your question. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

Hi Sander, here I am, thank you for your reply Il 17/06/2016 23:48, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,

...

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) You keep bringing that up, but how is preventing those newer LIRs from selling their addresses in any way disadvantaging them? On one hand you keep saying new LIRs don't get enough address space, and on the other hand you're saying that it is bad that they can't sell their space. Which one is it? I am basically saying that the rule of the game are already there and working quite well. And since I am an afterlife (14/09/2015) LIR this would put us in an even worste condition to make work our small business.

This proposal doesn't prevent new LIRs from buying address space. And if they want to buy /22s from other newer LIRs they can as easily (and cheaper) open their own second LIR. The RIPE NCC membership explicitly allowed that during the last AGM.

Two scenarios:

One - Someone opens up an LIR - They get their /22 (free) - They sell it off to another LIR for a profit

Two - That other LIR opens up a second LIR - They get their /22 (free) - They merge that new LIR with their old LIR using M&A

This policy proposal is stopping scenario One but not scenario Two. The previous version of the proposal did, but as that didn't get any support this version removed that restriction.

So what is this proposal blocking for new LIRs? Not buying space, not opening up a second LIR and getting that /22 from RIPE NCC. It only limits those LIRs from *selling* their /22 for profit.

I'm sorry, but if that is your business model then you are exactly the kind of business that this proposal is trying to stop. The IPv4 allocation policy has very few requirements, and one of them is that the LIR has to use it for assign addresses from. If the intention is to sell those addresses then you are already in violation of the current policy. That is *NOT* why you were given that /22 in the first place.

And as far as judging consensus goes, arguments that boil down to "I am currently violating the policy by requesting my /22 for the wrong reasons, and this proposal is stopping me from doing that" will not be taken into account. There are plenty of other arguments that need to be discussed, like the potential impact on the accuracy of the registry that Nick brought up. But there is too much FUD and noise in this discussion.

Sorry Sander, but I think you are kidding at this point. Already explained my business model and has no primary scope in IP selling, if it was so I would qualify myself as an IP Broker. I am not. Please don't treat me like a baby. Problems are slightly different: You know is very easy to keep opened a zero cost company in many countries that can hold the LIR and everyone with a piece of brain can easily make private contract to title the assignements to ends customers or other LIRs for black money. This is called black market and is really easy to implement with 2016-03 around. I argued about the fairness of the treatement of new LIRs but also pointed out practical problems like databases consistence and black market. With 2016-03 once stockpiled the IPs will stuck there and the easiest method to speculate on those IPs is black market. Do you think speculators didn't tought about it? Is exacly the same thing will happen all over the world if you say no more transfert will be approved. Can even higher dramattically market price and speculators will be really really happy. I will not be surprised if will make appear black market brokers as well. Please you want someone else goes this way not me. Please look ar RIPE IPv6 course attended list, RIPE meetings... and my IP transit contracts, presence of my AS number in NAMEX, MIX and AMS-IS and my space annouced and in use I am still convinced the only way to stop abusing is to use the current policy and check out the assignements and enforce audit procedure.

I don't mind if you send opposing arguments, but as I have said before I do care about the quality of the discussion. If you respond this policy in its current form then I'd like to see good argumentation with concrete examples of issues, not some hand-waving like "this is disadvantaging new LIRs" without any explanation of how that exactly would work. Then we have something to discuss that people can respond to. Consensus building works by explaining the issues and people trying to address them. Pretend I'm stupid and spell it out for me :)

I am strongly against 2016-03 because will give us a flowering black market zero transparency and no database consistence. enough quality?

Cheers, Sander

cheers and regards Riccardo -- Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,

trade, instead of "use for customers". That's not true, it can affect any holder of /22 from 185/8 not only "young LIRs". Even if it was limited to "young LIRs" it was not acceptable to me as they need to be treated same as "old LIRs", These who become a member earlier already have enough advantage over the newer ones, and this policy grant them more and I cannot agree with that. Regards, Arash

Hi Gert, Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto:

hi,

...

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: trade, instead of "use for This would disvantage every LIR that received or will reiceve an ad-normal PA allocation. Please leave the idea of ab-normal LIRs. The *reason* why this is proposed is to discourage stockpiling of /22s (by opening many new LIRs, waiting two years, transfer it all into a joint LIR and close the others off) - taking away /22s that are supposed to be used by further new entrants into the market.

A LIR that receives space, runs a network, addresses its customers, and might even be potentially bought one day is *not* affected (unlike version 1 of the proposal) - though the proposal might be clearer on the intended effects of M&A. Nobody protects new LIRs speculator stockpile /22 in a zero cost company/person without network or assignements and black sell it the same day it has been allocated with a private contract registered elsewhere from RIPE database. This policy is useless. Audit and control is useful, transparency is a must we discussed it at last general

Gert Doering -- APWG chair regards Riccardo --

Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943 WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi,

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 05:02:50PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote:

...

Il 18/06/2016 14:49, Gert Doering ha scritto:

...

hi,

...

I am strongly against to every proposal that higher the disvlaantage to already disvantaged new and future pyers (LIRs after 09/2012) This proposal actually will only disadvantage "young LIRs" if they want to do stuff with their /22 that is frowned upon by the community - namely,

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:49:59PM +0200, Riccardo Gori wrote: trade, instead of "use for This would disvantage every LIR that received or will reiceve an ad-normal PA allocation. You keep repeating this, which does not make it more true.

Please explain how this proposal would affect a LIR that intends to use the /22 to number its customers (and/or its own infrastructure), and is not intending to sell off the address space as quickly as possible to make a quick profit. Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be? Let's choose that in the future only ALLOCATED-FINAL can be

Hi Gert, thank you for your reply Il 20/06/2016 10:00, Gert Doering ha scritto: transferabble 'cause those allocation are for higher prospective of an IPv6 transition (we don't force IPv6 adoption) and old allocation can stay stuck there and unused so we can go 6 happier. To be serius: If you allow the creation of a category-b LIR I can't see positivity in it. A less capable LIR born invalid. Suppose your business for some reason has lot of customers for exmaple 'cause you grows dual stack and IPv6 is spreading. You can sell it one piece, but can happen you can even sell only customers and infrastructure and the acquiring company has enough address space or simply not interested because working IPv6. You may want to transfer part of space to your new company just created to set up a new datacenter or just keep on with IPv6 transition consulting services. You may even want transfer part of the space to companies that need it. Why shouldn't be possible? This LIR did no speculation at all, actually did really a good job of moving customers IPv6 and growing a company. Just reached the task that is not even more mentioned in IPv4 allocation policy today. Where's the quick profit? years of work on IPv4/IPv6 transition with infrastructure costs, ip transit and so on?

...

Please leave the idea of ab-normal LIRs. This is not an "idea" but observed behaviour by a few bad actors.

We must find the way to hurt only the few bad actors not all new LIRs.

[..]

...

Nobody protects new LIRs speculator stockpile /22 in a zero cost company/person without network or assignements and black sell it the same day it has been allocated with a private contract registered elsewhere from RIPE database. This policy is useless. Audit and control is useful, transparency is a must we discussed it at last general This paragraph does not make sense.

Yes, people can get a /22 and "black sell it", even with 2016-01 - but the risk for the buyer is much higher than getting a "white" /22 on the address market, because the seller has to keep open the LIR forever in this case - and if the LIR is ever closed, the /22 has to be returned to the RIPE NCC. So why should a buyer take this risk?

Elvis gived later today an example of what's happening in ARIN about that. I think we all would prefer transparency.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

regards Riccardo -- WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Sander, Il 20/06/2016 23:00, Sander Steffann ha scritto:

Hi Riccardo,

...

Teorically not, but practically creates class-b LIRs. I am against speculators but I would not like discrimination between old and new LIRs. There is none, please stop repeating that. I can ask the same If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of allocation from who didn't. Positive or negative discrimination depends on how it will affect such allocation. In all cases would create problems. History repeating. The current policies even in other RIR (i think it, i am not so informed about that and can be wrong) are trying to move over "colors" and not using them to discriminate between allocations.

PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE. Why shouldn't be the same for an newly invented "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" or an "ALLOCATED FINAL"? At RIPE meetings Registration Services make an update about the status of the database and there's some slide titeled "IPv4 blocks with status that cause issues" You know what? there's is mentioned ALLOCATED PI, ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED. This means discrimination between allocation creates problem to LIRs. I really don't see any reason to create fantasy colors when at RIPE meetings it has been asked publically to take an effort on moving over it. I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about different colors allocations: https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf [...] RIPE NCC encourages: - LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA “Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to convert PI addresses into PA addresses.” - LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI - Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA [...]

...

I wouldn't like to be discriminated. You would like to be? This is a ridiculous statement. Enough.

read above.

Every LIR is the same with the same rights. Under the proposed policy every LIR gets a /22, and no LIR can sell that /22.

True but unnecessary

What you keep complaining about is that new LIRs can't get as many IPv4 addresses for free as LIRs that started before September 2012. That is just the way it is. Policy changes over time, and things that were possible in the past are no longer possible today. Circumstances change. If we (the community) hadn't changed the policy like that then there would be no addresses to give out at all anymore.

I am not complaing about that discussing this policy I was just thanking again old LIRs 'cause Gert remembered me the same note here.

But all of that has nothing to do with this policy discussion. In your previous message you spoke about the bottom up process, that it means that everybody has to be listened to. That is almost correct.

What it means is that everybody is allowed to speak and have their arguments considered seriously. If those arguments are found to be false then they can be put aside, and nobody is required to keep listening to endless repeats of those same rejected arguments.

Cheers, Sander

I am not thinking my arguments are false. regards Riccardo -- WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to info@wirem.net Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) --------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Patrick,

What about assignments from the ALLOCATED FINAL? Will it be "ASSIGNED FINAL"? Or partitioned space "LIR-PARTITIONED FINAL" :-)

Nope, only the allocation will get a different status. The LIR can still use it like before, assign from it etc. Cheers, Sander

Hi Randy,

i have had an epiphany! RIR stands for Rinse and Infinite Repeat. this expains it all. i feel much better now.

Good one ;) Sander

Hi Riccardo,

If we had a proposal that changes the policy behaviour creating a new fantasy example category "ALLOCATED BEFORE FINAL" to all allocation created before 14/09/2012 this would be discriminating anyone received such kind of allocation from who didn't.

Every LIR can receive that allocation.

PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE

???

I invite you to read these from Registration Services update about different colors allocations: https://ripe71.ripe.net/presentations/86-FeedbackRS-RIPE71.pdf https://ripe72.ripe.net/presentations/112-FeedbackRS-RIPE72_final.pdf

Thank you, I know very well what happened in my own working group.

[...] RIPE NCC encourages: - LIRs to strive to convert to ASSIGNED PA “Where possible, LIRs should work to make contractual arrangements to convert PI addresses into PA addresses.” - LIRs to not create new ASSIGNED PI - Where possible to convert to ALLOCATED PA [...]

That is from a slide talking about ALLOCATED PI, you seem to be taking it out of context and applying it to all PI.

I am not thinking my arguments are false.

Yeah, that bit is obvious. However, you have repeated your point over and over again without providing any convincing data to back it up, so we're stopping this argument now. Feel free to discuss other issues you see, but the "class-b LIRs" argument has now been discussed, considered and found incorrect. Cheers, Sander

Hi Radu,

...

...

PI can be converted in PA easily in RIPE

???

https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-management/converting-pi-t...

ASSIGNED PI -> ALLOCATED PA on request.

Ah, that one. Thanks for the link-local I was getting confused by the mixed arguments about ALLOCATED PI. Cheers! Sander

On Sat, Jun 18, 2016, at 14:49, Gert Doering wrote:

A LIR that receives space, runs a network, addresses its customers, and might even be potentially bought one day is *not* affected (unlike version 1 of the proposal) - though the proposal might be clearer on the intended effects of M&A.

It happens that it may well be impacted, depending on how the purchase has been performed. Transfer by policy does not mean only "sell for profit". Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05: A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent" space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to "less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes". They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining /23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became non-legitimate over-night ?

The *reason* why this is proposed is to discourage stockpiling of /22s (by opening many new LIRs, waiting two years, transfer it all into a joint LIR and close the others off) - taking away /22s that are supposed to be used by further new entrants into the market.

What exactly means stockpiling ? Opening additional LIRs to satisfy one organisation's own need ? In what is stockpiling "last /8 space" worse than "stokpiling IP space" in general ? Especially for already-acquired space ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs

Hi, On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 08:43:45PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

Another "legitimate" case that will no longer be possible was an argument what was given to me during the discussion of 2015-05: A company becomes LIR because they need "some provider independent" space (which today is limited to ALLOCATED PA) which usually equals to "less than a /24 of actual need, but still a /24 for routing purposes". They don't really need more than a /24 now and on short/medium term, and they estimate that they will not need more than a second /24 (size chose for routing purposes only) even in the longer term. Someone argued that it would be legitimate and desirable for that LIR to put the remaining /23 (considered not ever be a need) on the market. Did this became non-legitimate over-night ?

I would consider this also as a fringe case - legitimate according to the letter of the policy, but not according to the spirit. These /22s are not for trading. But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you wouldn't have any space at all today. This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good". 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 2016 Jun 20 (Mon) at 10:04:33 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes :to the IPv4 policy +1 -- The human race is a race of cowards; and I am not only marching in that procession but carrying a banner. -- Mark Twain

On 20 Jun 2016, at 09:04, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes to the IPv4 policy

+1

- the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly irresponsible way regarding *future* participants, while at the same time complaining that they are treated unfairly by the old LIRs - totally ignoring the fact that *without the foresight of these old LIRs* you wouldn't have any space at all today.

Indeed. The irony of this is completely lost on these "new LIR” folks”. A possible compromise might be a requirement for future IPv4 policy proposals to show that they do not disadvantage future participants or increase the burn rate of the remaining IPv4 pool. Same thing really.

Hi, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:50:59AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

How does one go about restricting future policy proposals?

Re-read https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-642, this is not easily doable within the PDP (which makes sense). One could argue that "The proposal is usually submitted via the chair of that WGs" (2.1, "Creating a proposal") would give the WG chair veto power, but that's not the idea here - it's "the WG chair *helps* with the submission" (and while we've tried talking proposers out of particularily contentious proposals before, when they insisted in going forward, we've let them gain their own experiences...). So, the one true way would be to call for WG consensus on guidelines how a future proposal *should* be (OTOH there might be reasons for having exceptions, hard to predict...) and measure future proposals on these guidelines. (In case it's not obvious why we, as the WG, would *want* to go there: what is happening right now is totally killing our policy development process - heated and repetitive discussions, with lots of selfish or irrational arguments, effectively burning valuable attention time from those who are still interested in contributing to the common goal of a sustainable Internet, working mostly well for all of us) 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 20/06/2016 12:19, Jim Reid wrote:

...

On 20 Jun 2016, at 10:50, Jan Ingvoldstad <frettled@gmail.com> wrote:

How does one go about restricting future policy proposals?

How about the NCC’s Policy Development Officer puts bad or poorly judged ones in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet hidden in an abandoned toilet with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’. :-)

... in a locked basement with broken stairs? -- Mark James ELKINS - Posix Systems - (South) Africa mje@posix.co.za Tel: +27.128070590 Cell: +27.826010496 For fast, reliable, low cost Internet in ZA: https://ftth.posix.co.za

Hi Gert, On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:04:33AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

But I'm close to giving up on this and calling a ban on further changes to the IPv4 policy - the "new LIR" folks here are accting in a fairly

I'd hope you're at least half kidding here. While I'd agree that

This is not the way to do bottom-up policy making - "I want my cookie and I want it now, and I do not care for the greater good".

is about to explore the edges of what can be reasonable dealt with in a consensus based process under runout conditions, any eternity stamp on policy would be unwise not only for formal reasons, but also because it would prohibit clarifications and more substantial actions in this whac-a-mole game. The PDP, though, already gives the chairs some leeway of throttling or dampening the influx of proposals. -Peter

Hello Stefan,

Therefore it seems inconceivable that this proposal is allowed to go forward any longer than it already has

Excuse me, but that is not your call to make. Sander APWG co-chair

On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 07:32:50PM +0200, Stefan Prager wrote:

People currently need IPv4 resources to run a business. They don't need IPv6 resources yet and won't be requiring IPv6 resources for the foreseeable future either. A business is required to take the necessary steps to secure their survival and let me assure you they will do just that, just as any business should.

Is this RIPE role to make your business sustainable ? I mean, if I had a transportation business I know I will have to buy gas on the market to have my business run. Even if the truck came with a filled tank when I bought/leased it. Whatever the market price is. Even if my competitors reserved litre of gas in when the price was low. Being a business manager myself, the first thing I learned is that market/competition/rules might change anytime and I have to adapt for survival. As of today, IPv4 from RIPE NCC is reserved for newer entrants, just like your startup might benefit from tax exemption, access to business incubator or any other advantage in its early-stage and only in the early-stage. Plenty of IPv4 is available on market. Go there with your wallet if you need more. Denis

Gert Doering wrote:

Nick Hilliard - "because it will create underground and unregistered transfers of non-transferrable /22s"

answered by Sander Steffan

I should have replied at the time because Sander's response was, in my opinion, inadequate: Sander Steffann wrote:

Not transferring the resources means keeping the LIR running to hold them. If the LIR closes then the resources go back to the NCC and the unregistered new holder will end up with empty hands. Both the cost of keeping the LIR open (which will rise beyond the cost of "legally" buying space after a few years) and the risk for the receiver to lose their address space if the seller stops paying the NCC membership fee are strong incentives to just stop trading in ALLOCATED FINAL space.

This just means that the price stays higher, not that underground transfers / rentals won't happen or become a problem.

And M&A is still possible if people really want to move this address space around, and that will make sure the registration is updated.

This subverts the intention of 2016-03: 1. register company for £12 at the UK Companies Registration Office 2. open LIR in the name of this company 3. sell company to existing LIR and handle under M&A Net cost difference: £12. I.e. if you have it one way, the intent of the proposal is subverted; if you have it the other, the charter for the RIPE database is violated. Nick