Question about Last /8 Policy
Hi all, This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation. If they dont need it anymore, it should be returned to RIPE. Only allowed transfers of /22 from last /8 should be: - When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now. This will help to dont especulate with the last /8 and will help slowing the depletion. Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.
On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
Hi all,
This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ Generally, I'd +1 this ...
Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP space might be permissable ... Maybe a rule could be defined that states something like this: (rough draft, just my 0.02€) Any /22 assignment from the last /8 can not be transfered to a different LIR. Upon losing LIR status or being sold/merged to another LIR results in the assignment being withdrawn within a reasonable time frame to allow for ordered migration. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case decision if: * the LIR is being sold/merged to another LIR and has additional, older IPv4 assignments that are also fully transfered (no partial transfer) at the same time to the same LIR * the LIR is being sold/merged to another LIR and does not hold any other IPv4 spaces and has been operational using the IP space for longer than 2 years; usage has to be proved based on routing records or similar In either case, detailed information regarding the technical need for the transferal of the /22 to a different LIR has to be provided in order for an exception to the non-transferal rule to be granted by RIPE NCC. .... something like that would on the one hand prevent for-profit schemes and depleting the /8 pool unnecessarily, while the exception would allow legitimate uses without having to renumber (which may cause license problems, and possibly lots of work on the side of the end customers, though I doubt that static resources would make sense using last /8 IPs ...) Either way, transferal should always require a full transfer of an LIR to another ... if the old LIR is simply going out of business (either completely, or dropping their ISP branch), there is no technical requirement to warrant a transfer of the IPs to a different LIR, as the customers will most likely have to do some reconfiguration anyway ... (like new lines, etc.) -garry
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com> wrote:
On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
Hi all,
This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ Generally, I'd +1 this ...
Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP space might be permissable ...
In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate reasons to allow such transfer. And is it really such a big problem? What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to they try to grow? (and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that) -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
Hi all, I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely. Instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically. I know at least one LIR holding a /14 that he requested 5 years ago and never announced since then (and actually has about one /15 free space (amount of IPs, not in one chunk) in his other allocations. The legitime reasons against this mentioned (merger of LIRs) are exceptions to be proven individually by the RIPE NCC staff. But also here couple of guidelines IMHO need to be defined, e.g. no merging of LIRs younger than two years ... in the moment trading and holding IPv4 for profit reasons looses it's attractiveness, the exhaustion would become pretty relaxed. BR Jens PS: sorry for TOFU, mobile client makes it difficult to quote properly :( On 8. Juli 2014 08:37:27 MESZ, "Roger Jørgensen" <rogerj@gmail.com> wrote:
On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
Hi all,
This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com> wrote: the
185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ Generally, I'd +1 this ...
Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP space might be permissable ...
In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate reasons to allow such transfer. And is it really such a big problem?
What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to they try to grow? (and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that)
On 08/07/14 09:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team wrote:
Hi all,
I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely.
Not advisable. While many people in this community would like to see that LIRs returns the non-used space to the available pool instead of selling it - this is likely not going to happen too often. If you forbid selling IP resources - it will happen anyway in uncontrolled manner and uncontrolled environment - let's call it a black market... and this is exactly what we are trying to avoid here. Cheers, Jan
Hi, El 08/07/2014 9:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team escribió:
Hi all,
I fully support this actually I'd even go a step further and forbid trading of IP completely. Instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically.
Dude...dont wake up the devil! (jk) Im with you about returning no needed space. Since you didnt bougth the space to the RIR, you shouldnt be allowed to sell it when you dont need it anymore. Also, not announcing an allocation on a period of time can be understood as you dont need it then go to 1 Regards, -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.
Hi, On 08.07.2014 09:10, Opteamax RIPE-Team wrote:
instead address space not needed shall be returned to the RIR, and address space not announced for more than a year also should be withdrawn by RIPE automatically.
there are legitimate uses of IP addresses that are not routed on the public internet. The policy does not require address space to be routed on the public internet. regards andre
Hi, As I said in my first email opening the thread:
- When LIR bought another LIRs bussiness (for not keeping the 2 LIRs the transfer should be allowed - More reasons? I know there should be at least another one, but I cant remember it now.
For sure there will be legitimate transfers. Regards, El 08/07/2014 8:37, Roger Jørgensen escribió:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com> wrote:
On 07.07.2014 12:45, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:
Hi all,
This is another topic about Last /8. Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€ Generally, I'd +1 this ...
Anyway, there may be legitimate situations where transfer of the IP space might be permissable ...
In general I would agree to this however there are many legitimate reasons to allow such transfer. And is it really such a big problem?
What happen if several smaller ISP's, each with their own network and customer decide to merge... should one of them lose their /22 due to they try to grow? (and just ignore that whole they should go IPv6 because they have that)
-- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.
* Daniel Baeza
Im seeing in the Listing Service ppl offering their last /22 from the 185/8 For example, creating a LIR on 1st January cost arround 4.000€ (more or less) and selling the whole allocation at currect prices (lets say, 8€/IP) is giving you a benefit of ~4.000€
IMHO, we should not allow LIRs to sell their last /8 allocation.
Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2. This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing. Tore
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing.
Just to play devil's advocate: What happens if I * have LIR A * create LIR B * get LIR B's /22 * sell LIR B's /22 to LIR A * close down LIR B * create LIR C... Under current regulations, this seems to be feasible and allowed. I am not saying this needs fixing (today); just tossing an idea into the ring to see what happens. Richard
Hi, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 03:46:35PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
What happens if I
* have LIR A * create LIR B * get LIR B's /22 * sell LIR B's /22 to LIR A * close down LIR B * create LIR C...
Under current regulations, this seems to be feasible and allowed.
True. Maybe the issue is that the sum of (work+price tag) is not interesting enough compared to other avenues. Someone mentioned that /22s are not interesting for brokers ("too much work, too little money")... Just speculating. To be honest, I expected to see quite a bit of this, but it seems to be "not happening yet". I know that NCC RS is keeping an eye on the /22 burn rate, and I think we'll hear about any particular trends at the next RIPE meeting... 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 Tore, Thanks for your reply :) El 07/07/2014 15:19, Tore Anderson escribió:
Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2.
This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing.
This is the Public Listing Service. As far I know, you dont need to be there to sell/trade your allocations, so we didnt really know how many /22's are in sell. About the "lease only". This is what is publicity in the Listing Service, but as far we know, can be at sell too. Also, this is another kind of "bad use"* of the last /22. The LIR who owns that block dont need it. If dont need it, it should be returned to RIPE. This is what im talking about, returning not needed space of last /8 to RIPE, or at least dont let them to make money directly from the /22 in lease or sell mode. Im talking about direct money from /22, not talking about the ISP or Hosting company who "temporay lease" IP to their customers. And to be honest, we dont need to wait till is a problem. Because when It is a problem, usually is too late to do something as you will not be able to recover those space since it has been sold when it was permitted. (*) Yes, I know, there isnt a "bad use" rule in RIPE, but that doesnt mean there should be. :) -Daniel -- Daniel Baeza Centro de Observación de Red Dpto. Red y Sistemas Television Costa Blanca S.L. Telf. 966.190.847 | Fax. 965.074.390 http://www.tvt.es | http://www.tvt-datos.es Correo: d.baeza@tvt-datos.es -- [Atención] La información contenida en este e-mail es confidencial, privilegiada y está dirigida exclusivamente a su destinatario. Cualquier revisión, difusión, distribución o copiado de este mensaje sin autorización del propietario está prohibido. Si ha recibido este e-mail por error por favor bórrelo y envíe un mensaje al remitente. [Disclaimer] The information contained in this e-mail is privileged and confidential and is intended only for its addressee. Any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error please delete the original message and e-mail us. (!) El medio ambiente es responsabilidad de todos. Imprime este mail si es absolutamente necesario.
* Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT)
El 07/07/2014 15:19, Tore Anderson escribió:
Only 3 out of 3882 allocated /22s are present on the listing service. Furthermore, one of those 3 specify in the description that it's "lease only", so the actual number of /22s listed for transfer there is just 2.
This isn't a problem. It doesn't need fixing.
This is the Public Listing Service. As far I know, you dont need to be there to sell/trade your allocations, so we didnt really know how many /22's are in sell.
All transfers made under ripe-606 section 5.5 are listed on the RIPE NCC's web site. There have been a few of them, but I see nothing suggesting that this is being done in a repeated and abusive manner. http://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-of...
About the "lease only". This is what is publicity in the Listing Service, but as far we know, can be at sell too. Also, this is another kind of "bad use"* of the last /22. The LIR who owns that block dont need it.
The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need. Furthermore, RIPE policy does not dictate what kind of business models the LIRs may have. I would assume that in the end, most commercial organisations will distribute the costs of running the LIR across all of its End Users, with a profit margin that makes the entire endeavour worth while. I see nothing wrong with this at all.
And to be honest, we dont need to wait till is a problem. Because when It is a problem, usually is too late to do something as you will not be able to recover those space since it has been sold when it was permitted.
(*) Yes, I know, there isnt a "bad use" rule in RIPE, but that doesnt mean there should be. :)
I strongly feel that we should not spend time bloating the policy with rules against every imaginable "bad use" under the sun. If - and only if! - there is a real problem somewhere, then let's fix it. Tore
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need.
We are sliding off topic, but I have a ton of IPs I need for ourselves. Life wouldn't be fun without DNS and other services, plus a myriad of internal tools, etc. Richard -- Richard
Hi, On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 06:06:03PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
The very purpose of an LIR is to further distribute number resources to End Users. Apart from this single purpose, an LIR has no need for number resources. It is always the End Users that ultimately need number resources; the LIRs "need" is simply the sum of its End Users' need.
We are sliding off topic, but I have a ton of IPs I need for ourselves. Life wouldn't be fun without DNS and other services, plus a myriad of internal tools, etc.
Technically, this is not "the LIR". This is "your ISP business", which is a user of your LIR (and in the days before large AWs and INFRA-AW, assignment for that had to be approved by the NCC just like any other customer assignment). That "the LIR" and "the ISP business" happen to be run by the same people quite often doesn't mean "the LIR needs numbers". 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
participants (9)
-
Andre Keller -
Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) -
Garry Glendown -
Gert Doering -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Opteamax RIPE-Team -
Richard Hartmann -
Roger Jørgensen -
Tore Anderson