Hello, we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22.
From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer.
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each . I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them. Best Regards
Hello,
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks
It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015, at 14:44, Christopher Kunz wrote:
It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago.
While this has beed understood and accepted by some small players, deploying IPv6 doesn't spare you of situations like: - residential users that will cancel and make you bad press because their PS4 doesn't work. Not with CGN, and for the moment not over v6(*) - business users that will just not sign with you if you cannot provide them their block of X public v4 addresses. Be happy if they don't explicitely ask you to disable IPv6.
I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business.
And once you have IPv6 as standard for everyone, but public dedicated v4 either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 9:04 PM, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN < ripe-wgs@radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
While this has beed understood and accepted by some small players, deploying IPv6 doesn't spare you of situations like: - residential users that will cancel and make you bad press because their PS4 doesn't work. Not with CGN, and for the moment not over v6(*) - business users that will just not sign with you if you cannot provide them their block of X public v4 addresses. Be happy if they don't explicitely ask you to disable IPv6.
I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business.
And once you have IPv6 as standard for everyone, but public dedicated v4 either unavailable of extremely expensive, you do what ?
In what context are these arguments relevant? The situations you describe and questions you ask are situations and issues that already have occurred or been raised, due to the scarcity of IPv4, and there is absolutely nothing we can do from a policy point to fix that. -- Jan
Hello,
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks
It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck
I support 2015-5, I don’t see any benefit to migrate to IPv6 at the moment (and in short term) and prefer to use IPv4 as long as I can. As I'm not looking at last /22 as a migration tool to IPv6, receiving more IPv4 from RIPE NCC looks fine to me. Arash -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Christopher Kunz Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 12:47 AM To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg / Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria Hello,
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
proposal appropriate and acceptable. Also you need to put a brake to trade of the IPv4 networks
It cannot be reiterated enough: The final /22 is a migration tool for IPv6. There is a large number of viable solutions to use IPv6 as your main addressing scheme for a eyeball ISP, especially if you have started from scratch only a few years ago. Instead of screaming for more regulation on a market that more or less works, I think that focusing on IPv6 adoption should be the first order of business. Regards, --ck
Hello, connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on the marked cappable doing that job. The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as long as possible. Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just attempt to pillage in short-term... With regards, Daniel On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote:
Hello,
we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22.
From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer.
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
Best Regards
Le 29/10/2015 15:29, Daniel Suchy a écrit :
Hello, connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on the marked cappable doing that job.
ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing. bst regards.
The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as long as possible.
Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just attempt to pillage in short-term...
With regards, Daniel
On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote:
Hello,
we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22.
From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer.
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
Best Regards
Hi, On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 03:31:37PM +0100, Frédéric wrote:
Le 29/10/2015 15:29, Daniel Suchy a écrit :
Hello, connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on the marked cappable doing that job.
ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing.
Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here. 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 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote:
Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here.
Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)" to this list? Nick
Hi On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:59:44PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote:
Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here.
Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)" to this list?
Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have to be a separate proposal. For the particular proposal under discussion (2015-05), which has a very specific focus, this topic is out of scope. (OTOH, threading was broken anyway, and the Subject: was lost anyway, so technically it's totally unclear whether any comments in this sub-thread applied to a particular proposal or not - so: when commenting about a proposal, please keep the number in the Subject: or clearly mention in the text of the mail what your comments refer to...) And, indeed, let's focus on the particular proposals on the table. 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
* Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 05:59:44PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 29/10/2015 14:38, Gert Doering wrote:
Call to order. Wishing for non-existant technologies to overcome IPv4 shortage is totally off-topic here.
Can I also humbly suggest adding "let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)" to this list?
Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have to be a separate proposal.
Might we instead inist that the «let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)» crowd actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect? If it turns out they're unwilling to do so, we could call them to order due to the purpose of this list isn't to be a wailing wall for people to vent about wanting more IPv4 addresses. If on the other hand a proposal does get submitted, we could discuss it on its merits. (After the proposal has gone the way I believe it would, it would be appropriate to reconsider Nick's suggestion.) Tore
Hi, On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 08:33:46AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
Technically, this would be a matter for this working group (coming up with a reclaim policy for unused allocations) - but that would have to be a separate proposal.
Might we instead inist that the «let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)» crowd actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect?
I'm willing to offer 10-15 minutes of air time at the upcoming RIPE meeting to "pre-discuss" the viability of this - but given how the discussion about 2015-05 went, I'd rather not start the formal policy machine unless we see significant support for going there. So, if one of you wants to come up with a specific approach that would be implementable for the RIPE NCC and wants to present his ideas at the next RIPE meeting, let me know. Emphasis on "actually implementable". (Of course this is valid for every new policy idea that needs a pre-check - this is what the meetings are really good for: get quick feedback from the group) 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
Might we instead inist that the «let's make the RIPE NCC take existing IPv4 allocations away from someone else (and give them to me)» crowd actually submits a formal policy proposal to that effect?
I'm willing to offer 10-15 minutes of air time at the upcoming RIPE meeting to "pre-discuss" the viability of this
does romanian customs allow import of rotten vegetables?
On 29/10/15 15:31, Frédéric wrote:
ipv6 sucks. we need ipv4 ASN based end to end routing.
go beyond-IP then :) ITU called it NGN back in 2001 ;) http://www.itu.int/itudoc/itu-t/com13/ipexpert/future/72271_pp7.ppt Cheers, Jan
On 29/10/15 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote:
Hello,
we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting a /22.
From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to every our customer.
Hey, It's a bit of a pain, is it?
There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really needs them.
We have been through this exercise numerous times already. Forget about it, IPv4 is over. Done. No more. Ex protocol. Use what you have, deploy IPv6 and try to figure out the figures if it's worth buying legacy numbers on the market. Cheers, Jan
participants (12)
-
Alessio Genova -
Arash Naderpour -
Christopher Kunz -
Daniel Suchy -
Frédéric -
Gert Doering -
Jan Ingvoldstad -
Jan Zorz -
Nick Hilliard -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Randy Bush -
Tore Anderson