I support this proposal +1 This will hopefully stop some of the short term golddigging in the the dying ipv4 world. Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se<https://webmail.ip-only.net/owa/UrlBlockedError.aspx> 11 maj 2015 kl. 15:32 skrev herve.clement@orange.com<mailto:herve.clement@orange.com>: +1 -----Message d'origine----- De : address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] De la part de Andre Keller Envoyé : lundi 11 mai 2015 15:31 À : address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi, On 11.05.2015 13:43, Marco Schmidt wrote: We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net<mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 9 June 2015. I support this proposal. I do not think that this will have a big impact, but it certainly brings the policy in alignment with the original intent. Regards André _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.

+1 to this proposal Regards Bob Sleigh EE -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sebastian Wiesinger Sent: 11 May 2015 15:45 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) * Richard Hartmann <richih.mailinglist@gmail.com> [2015-05-11 16:33]:

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

...

The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published.

Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough.

I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though.

I agree (both to the proposel and to the statement). I hope that perhaps we can come up with something useful at the APWG session this week. 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 NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s). If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose. We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. EE Limited Registered in England and Wales Company Registered Number: 02382161 Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.

Hi! One interesting things. The following text is taken from here https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01: "The goal of this policy change is to close the loophole which allows companies to setup LIRs and immediately transfer the /22(s) received from the RIPE NCC, thus making a financial profit by using the existing IPv4 marketplace." As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions. In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances? P.S. I know that all said here and now have no impact since Review is ended. 11.06.2015, 12:18, "Martin Millnert" <millnert@gmail.com>:

 On Mon, 2015-05-11 at 16:31 +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:

...

  On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 1:43 PM, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:

  > The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer   > Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published.

  Strongest possible support; if anything, this does not go far enough.

 Also support current proposal.

...

  I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents   abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though.

 Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG  cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via  "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not  "illegitimate" and "abuse".

 As always, I believe address pricing will be most straight-forward way  to manage this for remaining RIPE region v4 pools.

 /M

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Vladimir Andreev <vladimir@quick-soft.net> wrote:

As mentioned many times during debates AP WG has no relations to financial questions.

In such case WHY does current policy appeal to finances?

Your conflating two different areas into one. You're also confusing "current" and "proposed". Additionally, you're attacking parts of sentences completely out of context. -- Jan

...

I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not "illegitimate" and "abuse". I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse.

I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses). Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide whether a transfer was permitted or not ...

From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind:

* merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason? Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument) * shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?) Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met. Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year *putting on flame-resistant armor* -garry

Hi Garry, all your points are totally right. So ... when will we start writing that much stricter proposal ... I'd be happy to assist! But: announcement-validation is not a valid mechanism ... for that you'd need only one real internet connected router and a VM running e.g. bird, which announces your prefixes. I remember about 10 years ago, when I was trying to request a /17 for a hoster in US at Arin, we were forced to provide a list with full customer contact-data for all our IPs assigned ... and they really contacted customers of us asking if they were running hosts in our address-space ... So if NCC does not have to handle all this transfer documentation anymore, LIR openers and closures, they'd have enough time to really validate requirement for transfer. As already written in earlier mails ... if the hurdle of reasoning why a transfer is high enough, the market will break ... and honestly I am sure that this would fasten up V6 deployment enormously! BR Jens - Certified to be flame-resistant - On 11.06.2015 14:57, Garry Glendown wrote:

From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind:

* merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason?

Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument)

* shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?)

Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met.

Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year

*putting on flame-resistant armor*

-garry

!DSPAM:637,557986be102931108720806!

-- Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team Jens Ott Opteamax GmbH Simrockstr. 4b 53619 Rheinbreitbach Tel.: +49 2224 969500 Fax: +49 2224 97691059 Email: jo@opteamax.de HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989

Sorry previous mail Garry not aimed at you My point is if consultation is closed .... these emails are a waste of everyones time... including this one sorry On 11 Jun 2015 15:02, "Tom Smyth" <tom.smyth@wirelessconnect.eu> wrote:

I suggest add a filter in your mail if subject Re: [address-policy-wg] Future of Re: [policy-announce] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Action Delete On 11 Jun 2015 13:57, "Garry Glendown" <garry@nethinks.com> wrote:

...

...

...

I will readily admit that I can not come up with a text which prevents abuse _and_ allows for valid operational needs, though. Indeed. Mergers & acquisitions are real-world business events that APWG cannot affect. I see a big nut to crack on how to address abuse via "illegitimate" M&A, including figuring out what is and what is not "illegitimate" and "abuse". I reckon if/when this proposal has gone through (either confirmed or rejected), some sane solution to this whole thing has to be found ... as several people - even some nay-sayers - have said, the current proposal does not cover enough bases to discourage or prevent policy abuse.

I'm sure that - as it has a direct impact on the business of both IP-brokers and wannabe-profiteers - it will face even stronger opposition by several people, but most likely no substantial arguments (as we have already seen these last couple days - after all, saying "it will cut in my personal profit" won't be a valid argument against the policy to knowingly cut into profits of policy-abusers in order to allow late entries into the ISP market some affordable set of IPv4 addresses).

Without really thinking about all possibilities, I would imagine there are certain reasons for or against the transfer of IPs, though some wording and "way of proof" would have to be found that be used to decide whether a transfer was permitted or not ...

From the top of my head, for a transfer, certain situations come to mind:

* merger/acquisition of company (can be proved through official papers/registration information) * is there actually any other justifiable reason?

Personally, I would see certain use cases where a transfer is not necessary for any technical/organizational reasons: (which may even weigh stronger than e.g. the merger/acquisition argument)

* shutdown of an ISP or company, where loss of IP usage would not impact customers (current use is terminated, IPs are no longer announced) * IPs were never (publicly?) used or only intermittently announced (how could actual use be documented apart from just an announcement? Would an announcement on the Internet be sufficient?), or have been unused for a certain amount of time (3 months?)

Due to the fact that IP addresses (especially PAs assigned to an LIR) are not "owned" by the LIR (in part documented by the yearly bill for the resource) IPs should not count as an asset with monetary value, thus allowing the RIR to collect them if policy requirements aren't met.

Possibly: Requirement to announce and use IPs from last-/8 within 3 months of assignment, otherwise the non-transferal-duration would be extended by 1 year

*putting on flame-resistant armor*

-garry

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 5:15 PM, David Freedman <david.freedman@uk.clara.net> wrote:

Also, since I see no mention of this being retrospective in the proposal, I take it, that it will only apply to /22 allocations made from the date this proposal is accepted? and not before?

My interpretation is exactly the other way around. Can we please get clarification? If your interpretation is correct, we can look forward to seeing ru.ibulavkin1024 soon. Richard

On Mon, May 11, 2015, at 18:06, Marco Schmidt wrote:

The proposal would apply to allocations that were made in the past. When the RIPE NCC received a transfer request, we would check to see that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was made. For example, a /22 allocation that was made 23 months before the proposal was accepted would have a waiting period of one month before it could be transferred.

Regarding your other question, the proposal being discussed doesn't apply to mergers or acquisitions. The Executive Board resolution mentioned in the impact analysis is separate to the proposal and *does* affect transfers, mergers, acquisitions and closures, and simply requires that the full 12 month membership fee must be paid before a new LIR can do any of these things.

This way it's fine for mee too. +1

On Mon, May 11, 2015, at 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

Why, a policy could be enacted that retroactively invalidates allocation/assignment criteria, resulting in LIRs having to

It is not retroactive, and it does not change the allocation criteria. It only changes transfer rules, and my understanding is that it will only apply from the moment it becomes policy (at best, more realistic is the time NCC is ready to implement, which may be some days/weeks later). What you say is suggesting the fact that obtaining an allocation for the sole purpose of transfer is acceptable behaviour, and I suppose most people here don't agree with that.

In light of this, I will oppose this proposal. For what that will turn out to be worth. if I understand correctly, you are opposing to the RIPE NCC's planned implementation of this proposal (under the terms and understanding of

Hi Sacha, On 11/05/15 19:00, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote: this Impact Analysis), is that correct? What If once the policy proposal would become policy and would be implemented, _all all allocations made after the implementation date_ will need to have a 2 years 'buffer' - would that be acceptable? I just want to clearly understand the reason for opposing. regards, Elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

That potential two years grace period is an invitation to all IP grabbers to grab more. Richard Sent by mobile; excuse my brevity.

Hi, On 11.05.2015 19:15, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

It will be retroactive? How this will be handled?

If my interpretation of the IA is correct, the retroactive part is restricted to evaluation of transfer requests. It means if/once the policy is implemented, it applies to resources already allocated by RIPE NCC but not yet transferred. Resources already transferred wont be affected. I think this is a sensible approach. Regards André

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your questions. The proposal would only put into place a 24 month holding period for allocations that were made by the RIPE NCC. For allocations that are transferred between LIRs, an identical (24 month) holding period already exists. It has already been mentioned on the mailing list, but I would like to confirm that the RIPE NCC would not revert any previous transfers if the proposal is accepted. But for all new transfer requests, the RIPE NCC would check that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was originally made. I hope this helps. Kind regards Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC On 11/05/15 19:29, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

Hi

El 11/05/2015 a las 19:25, Andre Keller escribió:

...

Hi,

On 11.05.2015 19:15, Daniel Baeza (Red y Sistemas TVT) wrote:

...

It will be retroactive? How this will be handled?

If my interpretation of the IA is correct, the retroactive part is restricted to evaluation of transfer requests. It means if/once the policy is implemented, it applies to resources already allocated by RIPE NCC but not yet transferred. Resources already transferred wont be affected. I think this is a sensible approach.

Quoting Marco:

...

The proposal would apply to allocations that were made in the past. Whenthe RIPE NCC received a transfer request, we would check to see that at least 24 months had elapsed since the allocation was made. For >example, a /22 allocation that was made 23 months before the proposal >was accepted would have a waiting period of one month before it could >be transferred.

What kind of allocations is talking Marco about? RIPE to LIR or LIR to LIR?

Regards,

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 07:25:42PM +0200, Andre Keller wrote:

If my interpretation of the IA is correct, the retroactive part is restricted to evaluation of transfer requests. It means if/once the policy is implemented, it applies to resources already allocated by RIPE NCC but not yet transferred. Resources already transferred wont be affected. I think this is a sensible approach.

Your interpretation is the same as mine, correct or not ;) The crux is, though: it changes ripe-623, the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" document, not a hypothetical "Transfer Policies" document. This sets a precedent for changing *everything else* in this document and applying the changes retrospectively. I can't be the only one who does not want to go there? rgds, Sascha Luck

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 08:14:24PM +0200, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

This has already happened before (remember 2007-01?) and it happens with every change of policy..

2007-01 is a good example of why ex post facto changes are a bad idea. This was controversial then and is still controversial today, especially the application to resources long since assigned. Had I known then what I know now, I would have opposed it more stringently.

For example, criteria for making IPv4 assignments, 5 years ago, is no longer the same today, the IPv4 policy has changed several times since 2010 and everything that used to be policy in the past no longer matters, what matters is the latest policy document and not the criteria from years ago.

Well, had "last /8" been applied ex post facto, we would all have had to return our /20s and /16s etc. ;) (and we've seen ideas to that or similar effect floating around on the list these last few weeks!) As a LIR, I would want some security that what was perfectly appropriate last year does not suddenly expose me to sanction because someone decided, after the fact, that it should have been illegal all along. (not this proposal specifically, but the precedent)

It will not be a precedent, the precedent has been already approved years ago.

Thank you for proving my point. Because it was done for 2007-01 it can now be done for 2015-01. So if, next week, the community decides that all allocations > /22 should never have been made, I lose the ones I have already? Because it was already done for 2015-01 which was done because it was already done for 2007-01?

I would not support an implementation that would require the RIPE NCC to apply the same policy differently for an allocation received on the 20th of July vs an allocation received on the 21st of July. This policy proposal's intent is to bring all allocations under the same umbrella (once implemented) and not create more umbrellas..

I'll only apply to allocations made >= 2 years before the implementation date for a maximum of 2 years. Not, IMO, such a problem. rgds, Sascha Luck

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

This is borderline to bad faith.

ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith. Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck

Hi all! I don't understand true reasons of this proposal creation. Let's think together. If it was created to interrupt exhaustion of IPv4 blocks, I want retort: today, 11.05.2015 have been allocated 6392 IPv4 from last /8 (last block is 185.99.220.0/22, 256/4=64, 64*99=6336, 6336+224/4=6392) If we go here https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/ipv4... press ctrl+F and input 185. we can see 508 results, but we should devide it by 2, due to there are 2 results in one transfer. So there are 254 transfers of IPv4 from the last /8. It is 4% from all allocated IPv4 /8. Also you should draw your attention to some LIRs who make more than 10 transfers every day. Yes, they don't transfer IPs from last /8. But did you think how many resources RIPE can fill if it returns unused resources? May be we will think globaly but don't about how to close a hole doesn't affect IPv4 exhaustion. So I oppose this proposal. 2015-05-11 22:44 GMT+03:00, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net>:

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 09:32:19PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

...

This is borderline to bad faith.

ISTR you not being very happy about being accused on this list, so I would thank you very much, indeed, not to accuse me of acting in bad faith.

Yours sincerely, Sascha Luck

-- ----- Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:

This sets a precedent for changing *everything else* in this document and applying the changes retrospectively. I can't be the only one who does not want to go there?

They are not affecting existing assignments. They are affecting how transfers of existing assignments are handled. This, to me, is a fundamental difference. Richard

Hi, On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 06:45:31PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

Your interpretation is the same as mine, correct or not ;) The crux is, though: it changes ripe-623, the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" document, not a hypothetical "Transfer Policies" document. This sets a precedent for changing *everything else* in this document and applying the changes retrospectively. I can't be the only one who does not want to go there?

Actually, I disagree with your interpretation. Allocation policy is not changed - people will still be able to get new allocations under the same rules, and existing allocations will not be taken away either. Section 5.5 is "Transfer Policy", even if it is contained in the same document as "Allocation Policy" - and it only affects transfers that happen to be after it is implemented, not retroactively. Now, people do get resources with certain assumptions(!) of what they might want to do with them in the future, or what they *can* do with them in the future. Like, "I have this /25 PI space, I can route this on the Internet!". We do not make guarantees that people's assumptions hold. If changing policy to require a holding time breaks the assumption "I can transfer away this block right away" - well, I think this is fully intentional, no? 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 Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:51:06PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 03:36:19PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:

...

Now, people do get resources with certain assumptions(!) of what they might want to do with them in the future, or what they *can* do with them in the future. Like, "I have this /25 PI space, I can route this on the Internet!". We do not make guarantees that people's assumptions hold

That is what scares me about this. If there is a policy passed that restricts all end-user assignments to max. /29 and it is implemented affecting existing assignments, I am (and all other LIRs in the region are) to disconnect and re-number all my customers?

But this is *not* "affecting existing assignments or allocations", as far as "holding this allocation and number your stuff with it" (which should be the primary usage for a block of IP addresses) goes. It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away). (And indeed, back in the day, we did change the rules what a LIR might do regarding assignments - from "do what you want" to "you have an assignment window, and anything larger than that needs NCC approval" - and then again, with a default AW of a /22. Worked out, as it was the same rules for everyone(!) - but as well, it only affected new activities not "what you have stays where it is", so no assignment or allocations became invalid due to it, and neither does this one) [..]

...

If changing policy to require a holding time breaks the assumption "I can transfer away this block right away" - well, I think this is fully intentional, no?

It breaks assumptions that were perfectly reasonable a year ago.

Actually while it was "according to the letter of the policy", I think it will be hard to find someone to actually say "it was according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy". So I'd challenge the "reasonable" in your statement.

Also, I'm pretty sure those who would abuse a loophole are following this debate and will have their transfers well sorted before the implementation date (if they have any sense). Implementing this policy for existing allocations will probably only affect a small number of LIRs who are acting in good faith.

Well, so you say "it will not stop the bad guys from doing their stuff in the next few months, so we should not do it at all, so they can keep up the business for the next years", am I understanding this correctly? 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

On 12. mai 2015, at 17.41, Sascha Luck [ml] <apwg@c4inet.net> wrote:

...

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 05:01:58PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: Actually while it was "according to the letter of the policy", I think it will be hard to find someone to actually say "it was according to the spirit of the last-/8 policy". So I'd challenge the "reasonable" in your statement.

A LIR now joining the RIPE NCC has no way of determining what the "spirit" of a policy is. (bar, perhaps, reading all apwg discussions leading to it) The letter of the document is all that counts and IPRAs can't make determinations based on the "spirit" either, otherwise this proposal would not be necessary.

You have a point about the spirit of the policy not necessarily being clear from the policy's text. That said, I find it hard to read the current policy in a way where you could reasonably make the assumptions you make a case for defending. The document isn't limited to a 5.5 that stands on its own, and anyone reading this point alone cannot honestly claim to act in good faith. Additionally, the loophole in the policy is a clear discrepancy, one which an interested party would ask for clarification about and not merely pretend wasn't there. Going along the route you've chosen therefore seems somewhat disingenuous to me, sorry. -- Cheers, Jan

I really dislike the personal attacks caused by the discussions on this policy proposal. Please stop. thanks, elvis On 13/05/15 15:51, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:20:38PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

...

Going along the route you've chosen therefore seems somewhat disingenuous to me, sorry.

Ad hominem, the last refuge of the argument-less. You lose.

yours, Sascha Luck

-- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Executive Officer Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 04:02:26PM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:

It was meant as an attack on the argument itself.

No worries. Interpretative difficulties, this proposal seems to attract them :) I'll re-state my arguments at this point, for the avoidance of doubt: - I recognise that a loop-hole exists and that some people are getting away with something - I'm *not* trying to defend outright abuse of such loop-holes. - I don't oppose attempts to prevent outright speculative behaviour. - I don't believe those attempts are going to be terribly effective, they are going to make speculation somewhat more expensive, nothing more - I fear, also in light of what I've seen from the apwg session today, that these attempts will lead to more bureaucratisation and attempts of the "community" to regulate into the business affairs of members and that those will also extend into the ipv6 realm. - I believe that the freedom of members to determine their own business affairs is an important good, and one worth balancing against the desire to not let anyone get away with "gaming the policy" - I believe the implementation plan for 2015-01 does not strike this balance properly and that it sets a dangerous precedent for more of the same which is already in the pipeline. rgds, Sascha Luck

On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:

It is affecting *new* activities that a LIR might or might not start with their allocation in the future (namely: transfer it away).

Trying to keep the noise level low: I agree strongly with this and with everything else Gert has said in this and his prior email. Richard

-1 I cannot support this proposal. There were the calculation was showing little part of transfers from the last /8. Also this proposal doesn't close multiple accounts 09 Июн 2015 г. 11:01 пользователь "Riccardo Gori" <rgori@wirem.net> написал:

Support +1

regards Riccardo

Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto:

Dear colleagues,

The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01

and the draft document at:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft

We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015.

Regards,

Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

--

Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net

[image: wirem.net]

I opposite this proposal. It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership вторник, 9 июня 2015 г. пользователь Petr Umelov написал:

I support Aleksey's opinion (NOT this proposal).

Why address -policy -wg doesn't tell anything about little influence of transfers on the system?

11:23, 9 июня 2015 г., Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com>:

-1 I cannot support this proposal. There were the calculation was showing little part of transfers from the last /8. Also this proposal doesn't close multiple accounts 09 Июн 2015 г. 11:01 пользователь "Riccardo Gori" <rgori@wirem.net> написал:

Support +1

regards Riccardo

Il 11/05/2015 13.43, Marco Schmidt ha scritto:

Dear colleagues, The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" 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/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01 and the draft document at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-01/draft We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 9 June 2015. Regards, Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC

-- Riccardo Gori e-mail: rgori@wirem.net part1.04050103.07050807@wirem.net

-- Regards

-- ----- Kind regards, Sergey Stecenko

Guten Tag,

I opposite this proposal.

It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ...

Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding) Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ... Regards, Garry -- Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown@nethinks.com Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32

Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <matei@profisol.ro>:

Hi,

I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time.

Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.

Thank you, Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag,

...

 I opposite this proposal.

 It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get  payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership

I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ...

Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding)

Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ...

Regards, Garry

--

Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions

NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown@nethinks.com Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015, at 13:00, Garry Glendown wrote:

own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now

It will make the "last /8 policy" last about 5 years (maybe 6), out of which 2.5 have already passed.

look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so

No, but it will most likely get to a point where people can no longer ignore it (as is the case today).

anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ...

As for those needing v4 space: - there will be a clear signal to get v6 *deployed* - transfer market will still be in place. ... as for v4 needs, new players are already fscked .... And BTW, +1 for 2015-01 in case I didn't mention it already -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

Hi!

...

thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly.

In my opinion it's absolutely right and current matter should be submitted for common voting. It's important to do this way because: 1) The proposal offer important change to IPv4 policy; 2) The proposal potentially affects many LIR's; 3) Only a small part of LIR's participate in present discussion; So I think the only way to make fair decision is to ask all LIR's regarding their opinion. 09.06.2015, 17:28, "Storch Matei" <matei@profisol.ro>:

Guten Tag Garry,

I didn't argue both ways, one was the opinion of the RIPE NCC in their impact analysis (in my understanding), and the other one was my opinion. Maybe financial discussions are not important to this group, but I do think they are important to RIPE members altogether, so in my opinion it is a valid argument, to which the members should be made aware of, and thus they should vote on this policy, as it might impact their memberships directly. And, some time ago, there was a vivid discussion between members, that Ipv6 adoption should be encouraged intensly. If the free pool of Ipv4, there is no better encouragement than that. Of course this has pros and cons, but it is a reality, as long as ipv4 exists, and is still available as allocation or transfer, ipv6 will not be fully adopted. In my opinion this policy will prolongue the process of ipv6 adoption. Of course some people will benefit from this, but the big picture should be taken into consideration, as long as the procentage is not a high one (10% in my opinion is low).

Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 14:01 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag,

...

 Hi!

 Fully support your arguments.

 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <matei@profisol.ro>:

...

 Hi,

 I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of  view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my  understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from  the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new  /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last  more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time.

The 5-year-calculation is based on a linear growth - as v4 availability will be more and more limited, there will most likely be more companies looking to receive PI addresses (which aren't available anymore), which will cause them to become an LIR for the sole purpose of receiving their own address space. So without other effects of returned addresses, I would imagine that timeframe to be more like 3 years in the end. Now look at the uptake of IPv6 at both providers and end customers - do you really believe that the Internet will be ready to go IPv6-only within three years? I would love to see that, but I seriously doubt it ... so anybody left at that point in time with only IPv6 addresses will be f*cked ...

...

...

 Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs  because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered.  Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros  setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and  it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Financial reasons aren't the scope of the WG (and neither should nor are they I believe for RIPE) as far as ensuring the Internet with it's reliance on IPv4 are concerned. RIPE got bye well before the run on the final IPv4 addresses began, and I believe even if we stop(ped) hoarders from abusing the system in order to get around the "one /22 limit", they will still be able to get around fine. Also, you can't argue both sides in your favor - either you say there is no problem as there aren't many hoarders, or you say that the income is essential and shouldn't be dismissed. Saying both contradicts yourself ... (additionally, I don't think monthly fees would be noticeably lower even with additional hoarders coming in)

...

...

 Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should  be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy.  Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game"  and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.

Oh, so somebody tries to abuse the intent of a policy, and they shouldn't be subject to possible changes of the system? The price for the /22's he's getting only doubled, so I believe that's still OK. Bad Luck.

Regards, Garry

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi, I would like to express my opinion on this policy. As a broker it's obviously in my interest to shorten the supply in order to increase the prices as my commission is directly related to the price. And probably that's what every IPv4 address broker would hope for. As a community member I would just analyze the data. And the fact is that since the first transfer in october 2012 until now there were a total of 273.408 IPs transferred from 185.0.0.0/8 which represents 1.83% from the total 14.895.616 IPs transferred. Below is the monthly table for theese transfers: +---------+------+ | month | /22s | +---------+------+ | 2013-01 | 1 | | 2013-05 | 1 | | 2013-07 | 3 | | 2013-10 | 1 | | 2013-12 | 1 | | 2014-01 | 5 | | 2014-02 | 9 | | 2014-03 | 3 | | 2014-04 | 2 | | 2014-05 | 6 | | 2014-06 | 7 | | 2014-07 | 6 | | 2014-08 | 6 | | 2014-09 | 15 | | 2014-10 | 15 | | 2014-11 | 17 | | 2014-12 | 38 | | 2015-01 | 21 | | 2015-02 | 19 | | 2015-03 | 25 | | 2015-04 | 39 | | 2015-05 | 19 | | 2015-06 | 9 | +---------+------+ I can't see an exponential growth or a threat to the last /8 available pool. Actually as you know the pool has increased over the 2.5 years instead of being depleted. One other problem would be the name of the policy. Alignment of Transfer Requirements. It's actually a chage of transfer requirements. There were other IPs that were sold less than 2 years from the date they were obtained and that was a real problem. I will take a single example: 5.186.0.0/16. It was allocated by RIPE on 08.08.2012, during the last-mile fight for IPs and they were allocated to a natural person, which I don't suppose was running such a big business at that time to justify the real need. Then the IPs were sold on 02.07.2014. I remember it was very difficult for me to get a /14 for the biggest ISP in Romania in april 2012. How difficult was for others to get /16s, /15s, /14s which now are already sold ? How many IPs from the 5.0.0.0/8 (the pre-last one) were already sold ? 1.783.808. In my opinion theese are the IPs that were taken for free and only to be sold by "smart guys". Maybe there were some bribes involved but all the money went to the right pockets. How can any sane person compare such an abuse with the "abuse" that is happening today on the last /8 ? Obviously some people are making profit taking advantage of this but an important amount of the money goes back, as someone noted, to the community. So in this case there is a flaw that is exploited and it's results are : lower membership fees, quicker IPv4 depletion, more supply to the market helping temper the prices. Theese are the effects and I think any community member would agree that theese are all positive. If you want to analyze and do some corrections look to the abuses done in the past and find the persons that were part in that activity. We have a saying in Romania, "the country burns and the old lady brushes her hair". A plus from me to the fellow brokers that fight with all means to keep the market prices high, as I'll make more money too. A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Limited

Hi Gert, Maybe my message was a little too extensive. I was in the room in London when the subject was discussed and I remember all the details. What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the community will benefit from it or some small group of people. To summarize the effects will be : - higher membership fees - higher IPv4 prices on the market What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ? There are many problems, issues, reasons, for anyone to sustain or be against this policy but setting all aside, let's just focus on the benefits of adopting this policy. Is anyone convinced that it will bring a positive effect to the RIPE community ? That's whom the policies should serve. We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to preserve them, but that's in the past. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 6:40 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be the only reason that drives our actions.

Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this.

Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something he came up with "to increase his profits".

Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never happened.

The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but make the obvious loophole less attractive.

(So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy, feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent)

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

Hi, Each of us has his passions and wants to shout his opinion. I didn't get involved at all in this discussion even though I was aware of every argument from the begining. The RIPE community is not like other masses that can be easily manipulated as most are very intelligent IT professionals. Therefore I considered is better to step asside, as I'm in the IPv4 brokering business. I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis of the policy effects. Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees - increase IPv4 address prices - help the last /8 pool become even larger A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool that would just keep growing "forever". Theese are my arguments against the policy. The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 6:56 PM, Gert Doering wrote:

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:50:43PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

We have another saying in Romania "don't sell the bear's skin while he's in the forrest", so I will not consider reasonable that last /8 is in any real danger. The available IPv4 resources were in danger and we, the entire community, were unable to come up with better policies to preserve them, but that's in the past.

Oh, I could say that we told people very clearly what would come, but since they refused to go to IPv6, it was inevitable that they would hit the wall. IPv4 could have been distributed slightly different, with maybe more stringent checks about actual use (easily fooled), but in the end, we'd still be where we are now: some people have more IPv4 space than they need right now, and other people have less than they would like to have.

And we do know how the yelling and screaming of total surprise will sound like if the last /8 is all sold up - and since the community decided that they do not want that, we want to stick to the intent of the last /8 policy. This proposal helps achieve that goal.

Gert Doering -- APWG chair

On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would probably grow a little more than without this.

...

The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion.

As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics. +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | seller | /22s | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8. It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia. Ciprian

Jump Management is a legit business and I'm pround to say I represented them in many transactions. They didn't hoard the last /8 and more importantly they didn't hoard the pre-last /8, so please don't bring them into discussion Maybe at the next RIPE meeting I'll prepare an accurate presentation of his business as it's probably unique around the world. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:42 PM, Petr Umelov wrote:

But you forgot Jump Management SRL, who has made

Attantion 1149 transfers

and there were blocks more than /22.

Yes, they aren't from the last /8, but may be RIPE will start to return unused blocks (during a year e.g.)? It will be more effectively.

09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" <office@ip-broker.uk>:

...

On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would probably grow a little more than without this.

...

...

The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion.

As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | seller | /22s | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+

Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8.

It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia.

Ciprian

-- Kind regards, Petr Umelov

I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8. But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations.

Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly.

09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" <office@ip-broker.uk>:

...

On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would probably grow a little more than without this.

...

...

The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion.

As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | seller | /22s | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+

Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8.

It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia.

Ciprian

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Probably the comparison was not adequate, I just wanted to point out some facts. I apologize for that. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 8:03 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

rotten apples

Such words regards to unknown person says a lot about you. Quite a lot.

I consider it below my dignity to continue the dialogue with you.

09.06.2015, 19:55, "Ciprian Nica" <office@ip-broker.uk>:

...

I didn't want to point the finger directly to the ones I was referring to but obviously I appologize to all other russians. It's just your company and mr. Bulgakov who have abused in my opinion of the last /8.

But only because of 2 rotten apples I would not throw them all away.

Ciprian

On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

You spoke that "some russians" make profit and don't speak about other nations.

Table of TOP transfers from your last letter shows it clearly.

09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" <office@ip-broker.uk>:

...

On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

Puting an obstacle will probably reduce the "hoarding" so it would probably grow a little more than without this.

...

...

The only reason that I would sustain it for is the fact that I'm aware of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread.

Please abstain from national attacks. It's bad style of discussion.

As a RIPE community member I don't have anything against russians. I would not call "hoarding" what happens today with the last /8 but here is the statistics.

+--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | seller | /22s | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+ | Bulgakov Aleksey Yurievich | 31 | | QuickSoft LLC | 30 | | Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" | 5 | | Abdulrahman Nassir Alahmari trading as SABAH | 4 | | Al Safwa Al Saudia for Development Ltd | 2 | +--------------------------------------------------------------+------+

Theese are the only persons/businesses that sold more than 1 x /22 from the last /8.

It's obviously that the whole discussion started after noticing the activity of the top 2, who happens to be from Russia.

Ciprian

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

And this is the final argument that this policy has no positive effect. It will not prevent the current practice as the 2 top traders of last /8 IPs know how to work around it and now probably even more will know that too. Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and I'll fully support it. In my opinion all the discussions regarding this policy only helped abusers learn how to abuse more and opened the eyes to others on how to abuse, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Limited On 6/9/2015 7:43 PM, Petr Umelov wrote:

*Attention

09.06.2015, 19:33, "Ciprian Nica" <office@ip-broker.uk>:

...

On 6/9/2015 7:19 PM, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

...

help the last /8 pool become even larger

It's not true. There is still possibility to open multiple LIR's for the same person (legal or natural, no matter) and then merge them all together.

So this proposal (by itself) is not able to prevent /8 exhaustion

Hi Jens, I totally agree with most of what you said. When the "depletion" was announced I took a look at the global routing table and when I saw that only 60% of the 4.2 billion IPv4 addresses were announced, I thought something is wrong. I really didn't imagine any sane person would pay so much money for IPs but probably the ones that predicted or helped this happen, were smart enough to hoard the pre-last /8s. If it were possible, I think they should be the first source for taking back IPs and obviously corporations or organisations that sit on /8s should be somehow persuaded to give them back. When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it. Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit. UK's DWP sold 131K IPs in one shot. They sit on another 16+ million IPs and you take your rage on the 2 russians that sold 30K IPs each over the last year ? Let's stop the ants too, but I would rather start with the elefants. Ciprian On 6/9/2015 10:57 PM, Opteamax GmbH wrote:

On 09.06.2015 19:54, Ciprian Nica wrote:>

...

Come up with a proposal that will really stop this kind of activity and I'll fully support it.

The only proposal which would actually fully stop this is actually refusing Prefix-Transfers completely and enforce returning to the RIPE-Pool.

The only chance for taking-over Resources then should be a real "merge" of two LIR including the demand of their individual customers justifying why it is important to not being renumbered ... That kind of proposal would actually remove a lot of "profit-making" for brokers etc. on one hand, but on the other hand it offers the opportunity to the ones really needing IPv4-Space to get their need fullfilled by RIPE... at least if that kind of proposal would also enforce withdrawing IP-space which is not being really used for a while.

Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets.

... and we discuss about /22 nets being "hoarded"?

Sorry, could not resist to point on that.

Still I support the proposal because it reduces the win for abusers and raises the risk that the now "hoarded" addresses are less worth when they are sellable. Hey, it is on us to make IPv4-Prefixes worthless.

Best regards

Hi, We @ as198988 support the proposal ... Im going to assume for the sake of arguement that in these discussions that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin contacts like me or well established experts contributing to policy for years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem.. I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with an ability to create backward compatible translation systems +1 mofos On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:

On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:

When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to

...

sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in use and they can't give up on it.

Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the goodness of their heart to give addresses away.

Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking

...

advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community, that would be a real benefit.

Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space, and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.

Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away. So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.

Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to help.

-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se

Another opinion/impression that i have (and this does not affect only RIPE region) is that big providers and content providers do not want ipv6 to be implemented because behind thoese guys are big interests of making profits over the ipv4 exaution and this happened as you saw in Romania (Jump Management) too.

Romania was for a while the #1 in the world at IPv6 deployment and even though you didn't take part in the IPv6 deployment at that time, you know very well how everything went. Obviously there are interests of making profit over IPv4 extinction but nobody from Romania would have been able to influence that. Ciprian

Hi, Opteamax GmbH wrote: [...]

Actually if that'd be done world-wide with all address-space not publicly routed - and therefore easily to replace with 10.0.0.0/8 - we'd have sufficient IPv4 for the next decades ... Just a brief look into the routing-table on my router and I see 10 complete /8 (so called public IP-Space-prefixes) which are completely not announced and another 4 /8 with less then one /21 announced.... and I do not want to know how many of the large /8 to /14 announcements are actually routed into a blackholes, as there are no real users on large parts of those nets.

Without speaking for or against the policy, I'd like to point out that there definitely are cases where unique addresses are required, despite not announcing the route to all of autonomous systems. There are plenty of RFCs explaining why. It should also be obvious that even if 50 /8s were recovered they would not be enough to meet demand. There are about 7 billion people on Earth and more than half do not yet have Internet access. IPv4 is not a sustainable resource. Regards, Leo Vegoda

Opteamax GmbH wrote: [...]

The "big old players" which intentionally do not roll out IPv6, because they earn much more money with V4, would finally start rolling out V6 if this money-printer wouldn't work anymore because unused space would be withdrawn.

I look at the publicly reported measurements from content publishers like Akamai: http://www.akamai.com/ipv6 Google: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=ipv6-adoption Cloudflare: https://blog.cloudflare.com/four-years-later-and-cloudflare-is-still-doing-i... and see fairly steep curves that I would not enjoy cycling up. And when I look at the trend graphs for the top 10 networks reporting via http://www.worldipv6launch.org/measurements/ I see something very similar. That's clearly not the whole story but it's certainly not all doom and gloom. Regards, Leo Vegoda

Hi Elvis, I did tell you several times in private that in my opinion this proposal brings no benefits to the community and it only will help abusers learn how to do it better. That's the only reason I have considered it a mistake. Of course I appreciate your effort and the original intent. You already know all my opinions on this. You did put a lot of work into it and for that I hope it will get adopted. Ciprian On 6/10/2015 12:06 AM, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:

Hi,

Excuse the briefness of this mail, it was sent from a mobile device.

...

On Jun 9, 2015, at 20:54, Ciprian Nica <office@ip-broker.uk> wrote:

In my opinion all the discussions regarding this policy only helped abusers learn how to abuse more and opened the eyes to others on how to abuse, so not that the policy is useless but it's proposal was a mistake.

this is not nice.. did not expect this coming from you Ciprian.

regards, elvis

Hi Garry, On 6/9/2015 8:22 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:

...

Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees Based on what? Because would-be IP-hoarders and people hoping to gain by abusing the policy to limit IPv4 usage will be incentivised NOT to keep opening LIRs and by that not bring additional income to RIPE? I doubt

Hi, that not gaining from hoarders will increase cost for RIPE and therefore its members ... last time I checked, RIPE's income was rather stable and usually well on the black side ... why do you believe this policy change will alter that?

It's simple math. Any new LIR would pay 2000 EUR besides the yearly fee. I think it can be considered a "hoarding tax" which at this moment seems quite considerable when compared to the profit of the "hoarder". We all benefit from that money. RIPE needs to keep a stable income therefore the membership fee is lowered when more new LIRs are established.

...

- increase IPv4 address prices ... but only for companies unwilling to get bye with what they have and push IPv6 deployment and growth ... of course this may put some strain to newcomers, but imagine the strain on newcomers if they can't receive ANY IPv4 from RIRs anymore because hoarders have ensured that RIRs don't have any available anymore, thus requiring them to get their required IPv4 address on the market for even higher prices ...

I was part of the team that had the largest IPv6 deployment in the world, long time before the "exhaustion". It's not that easy to achieve full IPv6 deployment and I'm sure that most of the buyers of IPv4 resources can't deploy IPv6 and even if they do, they can't give up on IPv4 yet. Dual stack is the only real solution and it doesn't exclude the need for IPv4. If you were at the last RIPE meeting in Amsterdam maybe you have heared about a few cases of IPv6 deployments and their problems.

...

- help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ...

Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision.

...

A policy is adopted today for today's situation. Personally I would not care what the original intent was, I would only focus on solving today's issues. I don't expect the original intent was to have a "last /8" pool that would just keep growing "forever". An additional /22 you give out today because you don't see a problem TODAY can't just be recovered tomorrow when a new LIR needs a /22 and you don't have any available anymore ... that's why the community HAS to think of tomorrow's problems instead of just living in the today!

All IPs that are bought today cost money and I'm sure everyone that gets them, needs them. It's not like in the past when you could get a /12 for free. Therefore I would try to help those that need today IPs and not those that keep them waiting for the price to grow.

...

of some russians taking advantage and making a profit but I'm also aware that's just a small crumble and it won't affect our bread. With the growing shortage of IPv4 addresses, prices will go up, making even the currently discussed policy change unsuited to keep people from gaming the system ... at current rate, the cost for a /22 network through LIR registration is roughly at 2€/IP. The policy change raises that to 4€ ... what if you can get 10€/IP? 150% profit for a /22 is a pretty convincing business model ...

Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.

Hi, On 6/9/2015 10:28 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:

...

...

...

- help the last /8 pool become even larger Measures for IP space conservation have ensured availability of addresses over the last ~10 years - if sensible decisions about policies cause push the frame further than previous measures have, I'd say: Job well done! Hopefully, by the time the Internet disables IPv4 there are still IPv4 addresses available for assignment by RIRs ... Here I can't agree but I also can't contradict you. There are opinions that say if the perspective that IPv4 will really be exhausted it will push ISPs to deploy IPv6 sooner. If you tell them that there will be IPv4 resources for RIPE to give even in 10-20 years, then probably many will say let's see if we live to that time and then we'll make a decision. OK, maybe we are getting somewhere: Apart from you contradicting yourself in part, you would consider IPv4 shortage to push v6 deployment.

As I said, there are opinions that say the perspective of real IPv4 exhaustion would push IPv6 deployment. I don't have a maginifing glass to make predictions, I have my opinion on that matter but I don't think it's usefull to elaborate on that.

...

Let's not help the prices raise then. The demand for IPs is supported by real needs as otherwise nobody would pay so much money for them. In a free economy when you shorten the supply, prices will grow. If there would have been a policy that would say let's get back the IPs from those who don't use them, that would really help. But we have a limited supply - if RIRs didn't put policies in place to reduce IP use, we would have already run out quite some time ago. Just by ignoring the fact that there is an IP shortage doesn't make it go away.

Again, my opinion is that we can learn by observing the effects of previous policies. I didn't want to get involved into discussing this policy as I noticed everyone gets in all kind of details which don't get the problem solved. I don't believe this policy is a usefull step in the right direction. As I mentioned earlier there are no positive effects, it doesn't help conserve the last /8 pool and there are no benefits to the community by adopting it. That's what's important. All other discussions lead to polemics that should be taken somewhere else. Maybe at the RIPE meetings. Ciprian Nica IP Broker Ltd.

We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. Ciprian Nica On 6/9/2015 9:01 PM, Ondřej Caletka wrote:

Dne 9.6.2015 v 18:09 Ciprian Nica napsal(a):

...

I "saw" a lot of flames and smoke but no real objective, technical, analysis of the policy effects.

Therefore I must insist and please contradict me if I'm wrong. In my opinion the adoption of this policy will : - increase membership fees - increase IPv4 address prices - help the last /8 pool become even larger

Hello,

the most important impact of the policy in my opinion is that is will make life harder for LIRs that are not really going to make assignments from the allocation although they confirmed they will do so prior receiving it. (ripe-643 5.1 par. 3) This is clearly abusing of the existing policy.

As most assignments will last for more than two years, there is no real danger for legitimate LIRs that are being set up in order to start some Internet business (or even expand it beyond 1024 IPv4s if the IPv6 development still goes slower than it should)

Therefore, I support 2015-01.

-- Ondřej Caletka

We all hate some things, wish for others... But making the life harder is not equal to solving the problem. _WHO_ is this policy change affecting? Any legitimate business not set on circumventing RIPE policy will, as Ciprian wrote, become an LIR in order to use the IPs. And use them for 2+ years ... the only situations

Guten Tag, that come to mind in which an LIR might want to transfer their IPs is either if they are being bought (tough luck for the buying company, at least they will not be able to transfer ownership for up to two years), or if they go broke, in which case the IPs assigned wouldn't need to be available anymore ... -garry

Hi Ciprian, * Ciprian Nica

What should be pointed out is the effects of the policy and if the community will benefit from it or some small group of people.

To summarize the effects will be : - higher membership fees

Nope. The RIPE NCC membership is steadily growing[1], and as a result the membership fee has steadily been decreasing[2]. [1] https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-620 The main reason for this growth is *actual network operators* joining in order to make use of the «last /8 policy». Even if we managed to stop *all* the "create LIR; transfer /22; close LIR" abuse, that would not reverse this trend. Also, keep in mind that these "create; transfer; close" LIRs will pay the NCC as little as they can get away with. As I understand it, that means the sign-up fee and one yearly membership fee. If the goal is to increase the NCC's revenue and lower the membership fees, it is much better long-term strategy to deny these "create; transfer; close" LIRs and instead keep the /22s in reserve for future LIRs belonging to *actual network operators*. Why? Because these will actually *keep paying their membership fees* instead of closing down as soon as possible.

What is the expected positive effect ? To preserve the last /8 pool ? The one that increased to 18.1 million IPs ?

The by far biggest contributor to the RIPE NCC's «last /8» pool has been the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool[4]. [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-recovered-address-space/ipv4-recovered... This pool contained quite a bit of space when it was first activate, and the RIPE NCC has to date received 3,670,016 IPv4 addresses from it (/11+/12+/13). It is important to note, though, that the IANA pool *is not replenishing*. It has been almost three years ago since any significant amounts of space was added to it (back in 2012-08). So we cannot expect that allocations from the IANA pool will continue to match the rate of /22 allocations from the RIPE NCC's «last /8» pool in the future. Therefore I have every expectation that we'll start seeing «last /8» pool actually start to drain soon. For what it's worth, since the first «last /8» allocation was made 995 days ago (cake in five days!), a total of 6,657,280 IPv4 addresses has been delegated by the NCC. Our share of the remaining IANA pool is on the other hand only 425,625 addresses. So all in all, I think that preserving the last /8 pool is indeed a valuable goal. If possible I'd like to see it last for another ten years - but given today's burn rate, the current 18.1M addresses plus whatever's coming from IANA will not suffice. Tore

 The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but  make the obvious loophole less attractive.

Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8. Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's. So what is this proposal about? 09.06.2015, 18:40, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

 Hi,

 On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:19:53PM +0300, Ciprian Nica wrote:

...

  A big minus from me to this policy as I think that profit should not be   the only reason that drives our actions.

 Profit is very explicitely not the reason behind this.

 Even if Elvis is driving the policy - those who care to also *read* this  list know that he volunteered after the issue of fast-trading /22s was  brought up at the RIPE meeting in London, and those in the room agreed  that this is unwanted use of the last-/8 policy. It was not something  he came up with "to increase his profits".

 Argueing the merits of this proposal based on people's behaviour on  addresses *not* from the last /8 is also not overly useful. Yes, we  should have all deployed IPv6 earlier, and this whole mess would have never  happened.

 The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but  make the obvious loophole less attractive.

 (So the argument "let's burn IPv4 and be done with it!" is also outside  the scope of this proposal - if you want to get rid of the last-/8 policy,  feel free to propose a new proposal to that extent)

 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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi! Here: +---------+------+ | month | /22s | +---------+------+ | 2013-01 | 1 | | 2013-05 | 1 | | 2013-07 | 3 | | 2013-10 | 1 | | 2013-12 | 1 | | 2014-01 | 5 | | 2014-02 | 9 | | 2014-03 | 3 | | 2014-04 | 2 | | 2014-05 | 6 | | 2014-06 | 7 | | 2014-07 | 6 | | 2014-08 | 6 | | 2014-09 | 15 | | 2014-10 | 15 | | 2014-11 | 17 | | 2014-12 | 38 | | 2015-01 | 21 | | 2015-02 | 19 | | 2015-03 | 25 | | 2015-04 | 39 | | 2015-05 | 19 | | 2015-06 | 9 | +---------+------+ I see only single growth of transfers starting 09.2014. After that time transfer count is just oscillating up and down. 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 >  The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to  >  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market  >  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear  >  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but  >  make the obvious loophole less attractive.

 Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8.

 Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's.

 So what is this proposal about?

The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible.

With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.

But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded away: let's keep it that way.

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.

So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes? 09.06.2015, 18:58, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net>:

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:01PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

 >  The reason for this policy is to make sure that the community keeps to  >  the *intent* of the "last /8" policy: ensure that newcomers in the market  >  will have a bit of IPv4 space available to number their translation gear  >  to and from IPv6. It will not completely achieve that, of course, but  >  make the obvious loophole less attractive.

 Earlier I already said that fast-trade takes away only 3% of last /8.

 Today Ciprian Nica showed that there is NO exponential grow of transfers from last /8 and also calculated that transferred IP's from last /8 represent only 1.83% of all transferred IP's.

 So what is this proposal about?

The growth in trade is VERY clearly visible.

With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.

But it's actually good that only 3% of the last /8 has been fast-traded away: let's keep it that way.

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

--  With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 07:07:59PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

...

With the limited amount of data available (since this effect only started over the last year or so), you can fit about every curve you like into it - exponential, linear, quadratic. None will be a very reasonable projection.

So we can't say exactly "there are progressive IPv4 exhaustion" and we have nothing to worry about right now. Yes?

We see behaviour that is unwanted, and is violating the expressed spirit of the last /8 policy. And your own numbers nicely demonstrated that this is growing quite fast. So, thanks for making the point that this policy is indeed necessary. 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 don't think the opinion is fair. It mainly guesses like "if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same" " It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in." I think many voices have been raised that there is no need to lower the membership fee (and it is not this wg to decide about it), but mainly the measure to prevent the abuse of the rules. Regards, Vladislav Potapov Ru.iiat -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Vladimir Andreev Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 1:45 PM To: Storch Matei; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) Hi! Fully support your arguments. 09.06.2015, 13:42, "Storch Matei" <matei@profisol.ro>:

Hi,

I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's point of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same, the pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time.

Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.

Thank you, Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei@profisol.ro [C]: Profisol Telecom

-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Garry Glendown Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 13:04 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

Guten Tag,

...

 I opposite this proposal.

 It only will increase the price of the block, RIPE won't be get  payment from this scheme and will increase the price of membership

I don't see why this proposal causes a price increase for legitimate LIRs that plan on operating instead of just existing for the cause of receiving a /22 then transfer to another LIR ...

Personally, I believe the proposal (or a later extension of the policy) should also limit the intake of /22 from the last /8 on the receiving end - while I do understand that for any late entry into the Internet market the limitation of getting around with just one /22 is causing a certain degree of hardship, it's still something that should not be relieved just by throwing money at it, while new companies with even later entry into the market end up without any v4 addresses at all due to hoarders ... so limiting transfer-in to something like 3x /22 over the period of 5 years (for example) could make it even more expensive (albeit, again, would not completely rule out hoarding)

Anyway, as a first step, I support 2015-01 ...

Regards, Garry

--

Garry Glendown * Professional Services & Solutions

NETHINKS GmbH | Bahnhofstraße 16 | 36037 Fulda T +49 661 25 000 0 | F +49 661 25 000 49 | garry.glendown@nethinks.com Geschäftsführer: Uwe Bergmann Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Garry Glendown | AG Fulda HRB 2546 PGP Fingerprint: B1CF 4952 F6EB E060 8A10 B957 700E F97F B412 DD32

-- With best regards, Vladimir Andreev General director, QuickSoft LLC Tel: +7 903 1750503

On 09/06/2015 12:15, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

This is also the (only) reason why I oppose this proposal. It sets a precedent for ex post facto rule changes which is, IMO, dangerous, especially in light of other appetites for stricter IPv4 rationing that have been voiced in this discussion.

not really, no. RIPE NCC assigned number resources were and are assigned on the basis of the resource holder adhering to RIPE policy. Policy changes which apply retroactively to existing number resources have been made in the past, notably 2007-01. I.e. this policy change doesn't set a precedent. Nick

On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:51:25PM +0200, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:

This policy does not change anything in regarding to the IP objects. It changes the transfer requirements. A transfer that has *not yet happend* can not be affected "ex post facto".

If the transfer policy were a document in its own right, I accept that I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. However, it's contained in the "Allocation and Assignment Policy" which is something I agree to abide by in a contract. I am not worried about 2015-01 here as I am not even affected by it, I am worried about other changes to the "Allocation and Assignment Policy" being applied retroactively, using 2015-01 as justification (just as 2007-01 is being used as justification for 2015-01). (FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the A&A policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would lessen confusion and make changes easier)

What you're postulating is something like "I should not have to go to jail for theft because theft was legal when I was born." No, you will go to jail if you steal something after theft was made illegal. So stop doing it and you're fine.

Actually, a much better analogy would be: "I should still be able to sell something I stole while it was still legal" rgds, Sascha Luck

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

Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 02:19:40PM +0100, Sascha Luck [ml] wrote:

(FWIW, I think the transfer rules should be removed from the A&A policy documents and promulgated in a new document, it would lessen confusion and make changes easier)

This, actually, is work in progress. Expect a new proposal from Erik Bais soon. (Would you object to that as well, as it *also* modifies the existing address allocation and assignment policy documents?) 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

May be better is to return unused blocks during any time to the RIPE pool? Why do older LIRs have more priveledges than new ones? They didn't setup new accounts before 2012 didn't pay for each /22. I won't be call such names, but you will understand who are they if you open The transfer statistics. Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months. 09 Июн 2015 г. 16:01 пользователь "Sebastian Wiesinger" < sebastian@karotte.org> написал:

...

Hi,

I oppose this proposal, mainly because of the RIPE NCC's points of view regarding this proposal. Reading the impact analysis, it is my understanding that this policy will not make a real difference from the RIPE NCC's

...

of view, and that if the rate of requesting new /22s remains the same,

* Storch Matei <matei@profisol.ro> [2015-06-09 12:45]: point the

...

pool of available Ipv4 resources will last more than 5 years from now - which from my point of view is a long time.

It does make a difference when the rate continues to increase which it probably will. It is quite reasonable to expect that it will when the IPv4 market pressure grows. So the goal is to put a stop to this before it is too late. Even if the rate should not increase, these actions are against the intention of the last-/8 policy and this alone is a reason why this proposal is needed in my opinion.

...

Also, this procedure of opening new LIRs benefits the current LIRs because it finances the RIPE NCC, and will cause the membership fee to be lowered. Just do 179 (transferred in the last eight months) times 2000 euros setup fee alone. It's an important chunk of change in my opinion, and it is in the current LIRs interest that this money keeps flowing in.

Membership numbers / fees are not part of this WG.

...

Also, if this policy will be adopted, it is my opinion that it should be enforced on the /22s allocated after the adoption of this policy. Otherwise, from my point of view, it would be a "change of the rules during the game" and it would have retroactive effects - which is not ok.

It changes rules for transfers that happen after the proposal is accepted. So nothing changes for transfers that have already happened.

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

The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean?

I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks.

...

Or let's change this proposal and continue the period for 48 months.

Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises.

Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case?

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

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

* Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov@gmail.com> [2015-06-09 16:24]:

...

The new LIRs don't pay for a /22 from the last /8 either. They pay to become a LIR exactly as the older LIRs did. What do you mean?

I mean that LIRs before 2012 year didn't setup new accounts. They could get new blocks so many as they wish in one LIR account. But after this proposal will take place they will can sell their blocks.

Sure, because back then we still had IPv4. Do you also complain because people could get gasoline much cheaper 10 years ago?

...

Sorry I can't take this serious from a person who spams LIR contacts to sell the /22s he got by violating the intention of the last-/8 policy. This proposal has to go trough as soon as possible. Further improvements can always be done in other proposals if the need arises.

Do you call the letter sending to email from the Transfer Listing Service spam? For what is this service in this case?

No, I call it spam when you send mails advertising "unused, absolutely clean /22" to mail addresses only used for notifications in the RIPE database. You know what, why don't you come over to the anti-abuse mailinglist and join the discussion. I'm sure people will be delighted. 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 Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3

Actually, I call this worse than spam as it not only spams, it misrepresents which mechanism the mail has been sent through on purpose. It was an outright lie.

When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation.

I could not agree more. I expect the answer to be no, and for good reason. Yet, could chairs comment on if there is a way to exclude people from participating on this and other RIPE mailing lists? Richard

My support to the 2015-01. I cannot but fully agree with Tore. 09.06.2015 17:36, Tore Anderson writes:

I call this spam: http://p.ip.fi/Zid3

I suppose I should thank you for rousing me into supporting this proposal. When spammers and abusers like you dislike the proposal so much, that is a very good reason to support it, in my estimation.

-- Kind regards, --- D.Sidelnikov

* "Marco Schmidt" <mschmidt@ripe.net>

The draft document for the proposal described in 2015-01, "Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations" has been published.

Support +1 Erik Bais

Hi, On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 04:30:09PM +0300, Vladimir Andreev wrote:

Don't generalize please. "We" don't really mean "all".

I'm well able to understand that Gerald isn't speaking for you, no need to point that out. 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