Comment on IPv4 depletion rate for proposal 2015-05
Hello, I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05. In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does not cover all cases of cheating the system. You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for 2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new one. The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool. That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers. Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20. Sincerely Martin Hunek Freenet Liberec, z.s.
Hello,
I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.
In my opinion, this might even slow down depletion rate of 185/8. But it does not cover all cases of cheating the system.
You all probably know better then me that if you want to get larger address space, the easiest way (and probably the cheapest) is to make new LIR, pay for 2 years and then transfer all its resources to your main LIR and close the new one.
The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool. That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers. You are right but and this in this case we have to consider that RIPE NCC cannot deal with any kind of business process inside companies or natural persons The only thing RIPE NCC can do is to check is the process is legitima and documented and it's very difficoult to discuss documents
Hi Martin, Il 09/05/2016 14:07, Martin Huněk ha scritto: provider by thir parties around the world with any kind of different law
Other than that, I agree with proposed policy change (2015-05). It might reduce the need for cheating system by offering the official way to expand LIRs pools, with motivation to start using IPv6 as well as limiting LIRs to monetize their (in 4 and a half years) pools so they can reach /20.
Sincerely
Martin Hunek Freenet Liberec, z.s.
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 Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Martin Huněk <hunekm@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I would also like to add my point of view on proposal 2015-05.
hello and welcome :-) <snip>
The proposed policy would probably lower the need for such practice a little bit, but still some space for cheating remains. I would like to see minor change in policy, such like that LIR could not transfer IPv4 resources from pool 185/8 to another LIR (or its sponsored organizations) so that receiving LIR (and its sponsored organizations) would held more than /22 in 185/8 pool. That way, it would not matter how many LIR you open, when you close LIR you would not be able to transfer resources to any of your other LIRs (in RIR region), so it would had to be returned to RIPE for new comers.
The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC? -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
Hello Roger, Le 10/05/2016 08:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
The idea might sound good, however you are not very close to regulation of normal business activity. What if some smaller ISP's find out they want to work together, merge to create a stronger company and they have one obvious place to cut cost - go from let's say 3 LIR's to one... but they can't due to RIPE NCC?
According to RIPE-654, two seperate process remains : one is for mergers / acquisition, the other is for other ressource transfers. I think that baring transfers of such blocks will only raise market's price for prefixes and move the market from adresses to entire LIRs. Therefore it looks unnecessary to me. Clocking a mere 56 adresses per months is kinda slow farming process, but still, it would encourage some crooks to create empty shells, set it as LIR, farm a /20, and sell control (or ownership) of that shell. Also, a fast growing new comer could have a need for additionnal /22s faster than the proposed timing provides. Remember we're far from that marvelous time where customer will drop IPv4 only services and devices anyway. Therefore, allocation of additionnal prefixes, whilst limited to a /20 per LIR, should be *justification-based*, not time-based. I get that /20 is still not enough for some cases, but it looks like the max size we can afford, should be enough for a last-resort CGN, and will prevent some crooks from operating profitably. Best regards, -- Jérôme Nicolle
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space. Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining. It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those actually committed to performing as LIRs. I can't imagine this will be a popular suggestion, I'm just putting it out there. Aled
This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off some years ago. You can still get PI IPv6 space, however. On 2016 May 10 (Tue) at 13:12:58 +0100 (+0100), Aled Morris wrote: :I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address :space. : :Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same :price as membership (???3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who :wants one since they can get one anyway by joining. : :It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those :actually committed to performing as LIRs. : :I can't imagine this will be a popular suggestion, I'm just putting it out :there. : :Aled -- WARNING TO ALL PERSONNEL: Firings will continue until morale improves.
On 10 May 2016, at 13:16, Peter Hessler <phessler@theapt.org> wrote:
This was called "Provider Independent"
No it wasn’t. RIPE NCC has never sold IP addresses of any sort. LIRs pay membership fees to the NCC. In return they get certain services. One of those services is allocation of globally unique numbering resources.
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:16, Peter Hessler wrote:
This was called "Provider Independent" and for IPv4, it was killed off some years ago.
Yes, except that the need for "provider independent" IP blocks did not disappear. Only the "ASSIGNED PI" status for new blocks did. The "ALLOCATED PA" is a good enough substitute for those needing it. Then there's still the "multihome with ASSIGNED PA phenomenon" and the "don't need multihoming, just a /24" (actually anything from /23 to /26 may qualify). For the second one, if done by the LIR it may actually decrease the depletion rate (saving months lost with extra allocations). -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hi Aled, On 10.05.2016 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space.
Perhaps (shields up!)
that might in fact be a good idea, yes... ;-)
RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those actually committed to performing as LIRs.
This would actually be PI space then. Apart from this, I'd rather like to have them *WITHIN* the RIPE NCC as a legal entity under Dutch law than somewhere *OUTSIDE*, free floating around and at best only loosely coupled to the RIPE NCC by some T&Cs. My $0.02 - best -C.
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space.
Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those actually committed to performing as LIRs.
Great idea ! I would actually like to have NCC's opinion on that one. For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses". -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:40:03PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space.
Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same price as membership (???3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those actually committed to performing as LIRs.
Great idea ! I would actually like to have NCC's opinion on that one. For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".
This is a horrible idea, tbh. The RIPE NCC is a *membership* organization, so "sell off stuff" is totally not in line with the NCC's mission of providing numbers to members. 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 Radu, Le 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit :
For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".
IP adresses cannot be sold, it's public domain. What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that. Whenever we decide to put a facial value onto adress blocks, we'd get in a slipery slope leading to the demise of innovation and competitive telecom market (re-read the taxi licence analogy). And it sure won't help to deploy IPv6 anyway, because incumbents will then be urged to slow its deployment in order to preserve their (now valued) advantage. Best regards, -- Jérôme Nicolle
On 10 May 2016 at 16:17, Jérôme Nicolle <jerome@ceriz.fr> wrote:
What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.
My bad, I should have said RIPE could "licence" or "mark as registered" the /22 address block not "sell". There is a recurring fee for PI space which I would assume would apply in this case, and the company obtaining the /22 would also have to find a sponsor LIR for their assignment. But again, I'm not necessarily advocating this, just pointing out that having a growing number of "fake" members, especially ones who do not share in any way with the ideals and goals of RIPE, could be bad for RIPE as an organisation in the long term. Aled
Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 04:25:08PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
There is a recurring fee for PI space which I would assume would apply in this case, and the company obtaining the /22 would also have to find a sponsor LIR for their assignment.
Basically this would be "PI", which got removed from the last /8 policy for a reason (and trying to bring it back did not even come near to any sort of consensus on who should be allowed to have some and who not). 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 Tue, May 10, 2016, at 17:17, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Hi Radu,
Le 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN a écrit :
For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".
IP adresses cannot be sold, it's public domain.
What's beeing sold is a service to ensure uniqueness and a well maintained registry. One-time fees won't cover that.
Jerome, The problem is the "multiple LIR accounts per member". Of course, it does arrange some members' business, but it still sounds like "purchase parts in an investment fund". OK, that situation is suspended since november, but follow-up on 27/05 (voting results). One of the ideas behind 2015-05 was to calm down the need for such practice. Some people do not agree, and some may start considering the "extra LIR" option as normal. Not to mention that some people simply do not agree with that and make a more than decent living out of it.
Whenever we decide to put a facial value onto adress blocks, we'd get in a slipery slope leading to the demise of innovation and competitive telecom market (re-read the taxi licence analogy). And it sure won't
Unfortunately we're already on the slippery slope. How far, check here : https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/tran... . -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
Dear Radu-Adrian, Thank you for your question. To provide IPv4 address space to non-members would require a policy change, as current policies only allow the registration of IPv4 allocations to LIRs and IPv4 assignments to IXPs. However, RIPE policies cannot define fees for resource registration. Such fees are calculated by the RIPE NCC and approved by the membership. The basis for this calculation is the financial resources needed to provide the services described in the RIPE NCC Activity Plan and Budget. I hope this clarifies your question. Kind regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer On 10/05/2016 16:40, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 14:12, Aled Morris wrote:
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space.
Perhaps (shields up!) RIPE could simply offer /22 for purchase at the same price as membership (€3,400 i.e. joining fee + 1 year subs) to anyone who wants one since they can get one anyway by joining.
It would save the admin overheads and would identify members as those actually committed to performing as LIRs. Great idea ! I would actually like to have NCC's opinion on that one. For now, I have the impression that the administrative overhead is just a pretext to be able to say "nonono, we DO NOT sell IPv4 addresses".
-- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/05/16 13:12, Aled Morris wrote:
I am troubled by the new members joining RIPE purely to obtain IPv4 address space.
I've still never seen any figures to support this, and thus it sounds like FUD to justify some sort of IPv4 ransacking policy each and every time I hear it. Are there any figures to back up the assertion that "crooks" are eating away at 185/8? I don't think I've ever seen any concrete evidence of a widespread problem as yet. It occurs to me that there will always be bad actors as long as we desire the freedom to be able to acquire companies with Memberships and pay only one set of Membership fees. I'm not actually sure if abuse of this system should a problem for the RIPE community, the RIPE NCC, or indeed a problem for the relevant authorities to investigate (i.e. fraud). Despite the possibility for abuse, I so far remain convinced that it's worth keeping 185/8 as a reserved range for new entrants, and indeed keeping any address space returned from the IANA for as long as we can to - hopefully - help continue that policy long into the future. There's nothing in 2015-05 that I find agreeable in this context, particularly if we discount the assertion that abuse of the /8 policy is harming depletion in a meaningful fashion. (P.S. Not to point fingers at you directly, Aled; you're just the last person to mention it in the thread before it changed direction.) - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXMgN7AAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6vPAIANOay9s+6KIDi8Tb0fhFedXe 5VcBB10PF9r49jSAcidwKSQ5bJJbqJd/VzIrZMnevPNQw8FZfX+xOlpsebMx4Ezt bfxzGJTO5JZ/ghc4PtCDbvj317dVy6rCftciylpmzHfMEzzpHHC1323NyWHf9/Hp 1EN2Hdjtsz+BVMGHOPfKHIpOAzyeCdXQ1e7HBsGKDhStzM0ygJrXtwBib3BiApc8 KNwyJFGY8Wb39Llb9w5PypXb5L51W71Or6kApcZvhkmTuo25aVS5Tvg/F5eIJ042 EEDdzgkLvN04jJdSZdYNW3VavoPQ1MGx+gtith6JF0YxlKkom2Wccb+QSgh/wcI= =7Yd2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello Tom, Le 10/05/2016 17:51, Tom Hill a écrit :
Are there any figures to back up the assertion that "crooks" are eating away at 185/8? I don't think I've ever seen any concrete evidence of a widespread problem as yet.
Did you recently got an inetnum ? Nowadays, the minute you get a block, you get 10 free e-mails asking to lease a /24 out of it. When your business is growing and your network is running off address space' vapors, you're looking out for any oportunity to recover unused adresses (really easy to do when you only got a mere /22 : usually none). Then turn to the "Transfer (Blackmarket) Listing Service" and get indecent (side) offers for newly assigned prefixes put up for rent. I don't need numbers to see there's something wrong : a market for adress space must NOT exist. The listing service must be dismantled, and no one should be able to profit from wrongly privatised public domain, period. Unused inetnums must return to pool, and LIR's able to justify their needs _periodicaly_ should be able to get some more juice off the available pool, if they're also contributing to getting us all out of this mess by actively promoting IPv6. Or am I a bit too commie for this discussion ? -- Jérôme Nicolle
Hi, On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 06:17:49PM +0200, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
When your business is growing and your network is running off address space' vapors, you're looking out for any oportunity to recover unused adresses (really easy to do when you only got a mere /22 : usually none). Then turn to the "Transfer (Blackmarket) Listing Service" and get indecent (side) offers for newly assigned prefixes put up for rent.
I don't need numbers to see there's something wrong : a market for adress space must NOT exist. The listing service must be dismantled, and no one should be able to profit from wrongly privatised public domain, period.
Unused inetnums must return to pool, and LIR's able to justify their needs _periodicaly_ should be able to get some more juice off the available pool, if they're also contributing to getting us all out of this mess by actively promoting IPv6.
Or am I a bit too commie for this discussion ?
Bring up a workable proposal to ensure that this can be done, and we'll discuss it. Emphasis on *workable*, ensuring that people will not be able to just ignore the results and revert to lying to the NCC. So far, pragmatism led to the acceptance of a market *provided* people will update the registry information (so it is not a *black* market) - which is vastly better for the overall system than "look, I have this unused /16, do you want to rent it for $vastsums, but do not tell anybody!". As long as money can be made out of IPv4 space (read: people are going to pay for it), it will be made. If you all go to IPv6, IPv4 space will totally lose its value. Just sayin' 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/05/16 17:17, Jérôme Nicolle wrote:
Did you recently got an inetnum ? Nowadays, the minute you get a block, you get 10 free e-mails asking to lease a /24 out of it.
This is not the same problem that I was referring to? It so happens that what you're referencing is also completely irrelevant to 2015-05, or the IPv4 austerity procedure; you can happily ignore any business offering to lease your IPs, and even if you accepted their offer, the IP space would still not be not allocated to those persons indefinitely. - -- Tom Hill Network Engineer Bytemark Hosting http://www.bytemark.co.uk/ tel. +44 1904 890 890 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXMg8SAAoJEH2fKbrp2sQ6diUH/0oibUrH0EyCaoAm2AXz/GkU XWI627oXQbDuOk6IdxHLgzAELuRpQoNS9AjebGFpJZ3nnv+iuxXuuHF8i/Jnt5pr pjP9Q63bgEHuBX689kAXEwP6KgnMw4rnh3ivCHTOj63JHTJ1YFPGj2ZxPo1FNQMQ d1rdicWUpaWsdm4xKeALjuUEPFK1kZrZb+hjRCgjrjGnr84htzufOn0gOS//Mswm EuFi3kAmqqaoYQcOzIsmIod+YOUhah1+arsSFsdh1LM8b1cyuh/o8CTpg+gURAyh VkAlcBpOUOEJR+ePEE+2LuxWqgWOtMgoHwa+UW2whOtjTcdC84lF3XXRwqHG6oo= =keoH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (12)
-
Aled Morris -
Carsten Schiefner -
Gert Doering -
Jim Reid -
Jérôme Nicolle -
Marco Schmidt -
Martin Huněk -
Peter Hessler -
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN -
Riccardo Gori -
Roger Jørgensen -
Tom Hill