Hi Aleksei, This has nothing to do with cost or payment per IP. The policy is about keeping an accurate registry and not about how someone received the IP space in the past. The community doesn’t set cost / price for the NCC, that is discussed during the AGM. PI is here in the RIPE region because for some reason people didn’t require the option to assign IP space to others, but only use the IP space for themselves (their infrastructure). That is different than having PA space and being an LIR. On top of that, some organisations aren’t allowed by legal reasons to become a member, but they still have the requirement to be provider independent. Stating that LIR’s will be much worse off than owners of PI blocks is not true, because with the different status on the IP space, they have different rights / options. The main goal of the policy is to get the ‘under the table’ trading solved and keeping the registry accurate. The policy doesn’t change anything about what the cost is for PI (historic or future) and any discussion about cost/pricing should be done in member discussion / AGM. With this policy we will get the same transfer option for PI as we have for PA and that will allow us after this to go to a unified policy document just for transfers. Please let me know if you have additional questions. Regards, Erik Bais Author of 2014-02 Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd. Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 10:14 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...] Hello all, I don't support this proposal. This is Pandora's box. To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur. LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks. We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments. -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <gert@space.net <mailto:gert@space.net> > wrote:

Dear AP WG,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02

and the draft document at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft

We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.

So, tell me your thoughts, please.

thanks,

Gert Doering, APWG chair

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

Dear Andrzej,

 PI and PA are for different purposes. PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.

Yes, this is great theory. In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need.  I see a lot of requests for PI networks last month. They ready to pay for transfer one time and then pay very small money every year. 

 Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)

I remember very long discussion about it ) We decided that each LIR is a member and we contribute same amount of money into RIPE. And it is logicaly.   -- Aleksei 04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а): PI and PA are for different purposes. PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers. I cooperate with two ip owners. One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR. Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc. And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc). Here is used PI class. I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever. Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair. If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block? Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :) W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze: Hello all, I don't support this proposal. This is Pandora's box.  To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur. LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks. We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments. -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom   On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering [1]<gert@space.net> wrote:

Dear AP WG,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:

    [2]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02

and the draft document at:

    [3]https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft

We could use a bit more input on this proposal.  We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.

So, tell me your thoughts, please.

thanks,

Gert Doering,   APWG chair

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  

-- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała [4]http://andrzej.dopierala.name/ [1] mailto:gert@space.net [2] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02 [3] https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft [4] http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

Hi, On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:04:37AM +0200, Andrei Kushnireuski wrote:

Everybody knows a lot of ISPs use PI at result of non-ideal IPv4 assignment policy from the RIPE NCC side.

I should point out that the policy is not made by the RIPE NCC but by *this* community. The "PI loophole for IPv4 ISPs" was pointed out a few times by people from the NCC, and the community did not want to change it - so don't blaim the NCC for it.

The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.

Cost is out of scope for the address policy WG. PI -> PA conversion can be done today already, if a PI holder is or becomes a LIR - but that's a different thing than what is under discussion of this proposal. So it would be good to stay focused, and not discuss everything that has gone wrong with IPv4 in this thread. 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

For those that might have missed the discussion on this mailing list about the policy proposal or didn’t attend RIPE68, I have done a presentation in Warshaw at RIPE68 about the policy proposal. These options have been discussed there and you can review the discussion on the archive here : https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/167/ Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd. Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 12:41 Aan: noable@gmail.com CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...] Dear Andrei,

The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.

Very good solution. All PI convert to PA. As a result memebership fee will be less in 2 times or more while we will have at least in 2 times more RIPE members. -- Aleksei 04.08.2014 13:05 - Andrei Kushnireuski написал(а): Everybody knows a lot of ISPs use PI at result of non-ideal IPv4 assignment policy from the RIPE NCC side. The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems. -- Andrei Kushnireuski On 04 Aug 2014, at 10:54, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru <mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru> > wrote: Dear Andrzej,

PI and PA are for different purposes. PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.

Yes, this is great theory. In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need. I see a lot of requests for PI networks last month. They ready to pay for transfer one time and then pay very small money every year.

Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)

I remember very long discussion about it ) We decided that each LIR is a member and we contribute same amount of money into RIPE. And it is logicaly. -- Aleksei 04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а): PI and PA are for different purposes. PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers. I cooperate with two ip owners. One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR. Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc. And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc). Here is used PI class. I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever. Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair. If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block? Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :) W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze: Hello all, I don't support this proposal. This is Pandora's box. To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur. LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks. We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments. -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <mailto:gert@space.net> <gert@space.net> wrote:

Dear AP WG,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02

and the draft document at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft

We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.

So, tell me your thoughts, please.

thanks,

Gert Doering, APWG chair

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

-- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

Yes. It was complex, because membership to specific class depend on years of ip owning, date, other lirs etc. It was stupid. It was because amount of ip owned by RIPE was not fixed. "the best" is simple structure. For example - every lir who give ip for others - pay 1600e, every pi owner who use ip for infrastructure pay 50e (like now) - every ip owner (independly pi or pa) pay the same amound of money for every ip which have both are simple. And second is better. In first schema - get a thought experiment - what would happen if all lirs merged together. If they would pay 1600euro (like in 1 scenario) - total ripe income would be 1600euro. much to low for ripe. In second scenario - income of ripe (ncc) aren't depended on count of lirs, but on amount of owned ip's. currenty there is no new ip's, so dependende the payment from date of grant is senseless. W dniu 04.08.2014 11:15, Erik Bais pisze:

Hi Andrzej,

This is getting off-topic to the mentioned policy, but I will answer your question.

...

If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block? Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :) That would have a tax implication for the RIPE NCC and that is one of the reasons why the members votes 2 years ago to a simpler fixed fee structure. As you might know the charging schema was pretty complex in the past.

Regards, Erik Bais

Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens Andrzej Dopierala Verzonden: maandag 4 augustus 2014 10:37 Aan: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]

PI and PA are for different purposes. PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers. I cooperate with two ip owners. One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR.

Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc.

And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc). Here is used PI class.

I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever.

Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair.

If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block?

Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)

W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze: Hello all,

I don't support this proposal.

This is Pandora's box.

To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur.

LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks.

We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments.

-- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom

On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

...

Dear AP WG,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02

and the draft document at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft

We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.

So, tell me your thoughts, please.

thanks,

Gert Doering, APWG chair

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

-- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/

Hi, On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Andrzej Dopiera??a wrote:

"the best" is simple structure. For example - every lir who give ip for others - pay 1600e, every pi owner who use ip for infrastructure pay 50e (like now) - every ip owner (independly pi or pa) pay the same amound of money for every ip which have

As said before, APWG has very little influence on the charging scheme. So please keep prices out of this discussion here - charging scheme and RIPE fees can be discussed on the ripe-members list. 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

Dear Daniel,

- It doesn't change almost anything in practice - as new IPv4 PI aren't assigned, this just affects existing assignments.

It can drop amount of LIRs, while much cheaper to find PI - pay one time fee to owner and then return PA space and cancel contract as LIR. I understund difference PA & PI, but as I told - real customers often uses PI as PA.   -- Aleksei LeaderTelecom 04.08.2014 15:29 - Daniel Suchy написал(а): -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Membership fee at these times doesn't in any case correlate with ammount of address resources held by each LIR. Conversely, fees were simplified. - From APWG perspective, I *support* this proposal. It doesn't change almost anything in practice - as new IPv4 PI aren't assigned, this just affects existing assignments. With regards, Daniel On 4.8.2014 11:46, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Mon, Aug 04, 2014 at 11:26:59AM +0200, Andrzej Dopiera??a wrote:

...

"the best" is simple structure. For example - every lir who give ip for others - pay 1600e, every pi owner who use ip for infrastructure pay 50e (like now) - every ip owner (independly pi or pa) pay the same amound of money for every ip which have

As said before, APWG has very little influence on the charging scheme.

So please keep prices out of this discussion here - charging scheme and RIPE fees can be discussed on the ripe-members list.

thanks,

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlPfbGcACgkQ0m6yQqKjWoJoAgCfbkg+0rfky7vca9FMDNYzzp7e ZZ8An1UGqAFWdZqyNnatvYM+qa9TNHNp =yQF1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----  

Dear Daniel,

Number of (free and available) PI resources is quite low and it remains I think - simply due to depletion. I don't think we need another administrative barriers to use existing assigned address space.

If Number of (free and available) PI resources is quite low, then we will not have any problem, but I afraid that a lot of PI resources can be free. For example, some companies already transfered 1mln free IPv4 addresses (QSC AG): https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140801190343-6692786-secrets-o...   -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom 04.08.2014 15:59 - Daniel Suchy написал(а): -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 4.8.2014 13:40, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:

It can drop amount of LIRs, while much cheaper to find PI - pay one time fee to owner and then return PA space and cancel contract as LIR. I understund difference PA & PI, but as I told - real customers often uses PI as PA.

Number of (free and available) PI resources is quite low and it remains I think - simply due to depletion. I don't think we need another administrative barriers to use existing assigned address space. Misuse of some address space assignment is question of assignment audit in general, I think. Transfer in general points attention to particular LIR/address space during administrative procedure. And as was mentioned by Gert, in APWG we basicaly haven't any reason to care about NCC charging scheme, this is discussion for another mailing list. - - Daniel -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlPfdX8ACgkQ0m6yQqKjWoJjtACeM21U97y3qQexIslVJdTwT/Pc Hu0AnirIBJdJeYtNyuyyQZZhZUyaNAht =xxZu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----  

Dear Andre,

This might work for IPv4 - you will violate policies if you still address end-users with these addresses and risk de-registration. 

But for IPv6 this is a different story. Getting IPv6 PI space in a block

Do you know any fact of de-registration?  that is

greater than /48 you need to provide documentation. And I doubt you can "fake" documentiation that will give you the resources you need. If all your competitors give customers a /48 you will want to do that as-well. Or even with /56, there are only 256 of those in a /48. So if you want to participate in the market you we'll need PA IPv6 and therefore need to be a LIR anyway. IPv6 is another story. We charge very small money for IPv6 network and customers usualy use IPv6 in right way.

 What is ~1300€ in your yearly budget compared to equipment, transit/backhaul and operating costs? I would not think it is significant...

Some startups have very low amount of money.    -- Aleksei 04.08.2014 15:59 - Andre Keller написал(а): Hi Aleksei, On 08/04/2014 01:40 PM, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:

It can drop amount of LIRs, while much cheaper to find PI - pay one time fee to owner and then return PA space and cancel contract as LIR. I understund difference PA & PI, but as I told - real customers often uses PI as PA.    

This might work for IPv4 - you will violate policies if you still address end-users with these addresses and risk de-registration. But for IPv6 this is a different story. Getting IPv6 PI space in a block that is greater than /48 you need to provide documentation. And I doubt you can "fake" documentiation that will give you the resources you need. If all your competitors give customers a /48 you will want to do that as-well. Or even with /56, there are only 256 of those in a /48. So if you want to participate in the market you we'll need PA IPv6 and therefore need to be a LIR anyway. What is ~1300€ in your yearly budget compared to equipment, transit/backhaul and operating costs? I would not think it is significant... g Andre  

Piotr Strzyzewski wrote, 04.08.2014 16:30: I also support this prposal. With respect, Larisa Yurkina RosNIIROS

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:18:53PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

...

Dear AP WG,

On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02, "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.

You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02

and the draft document at:

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft

We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.

So, tell me your thoughts, please. I support this proposal.

Piotr