[Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8
Dear Sirs, I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. Any Pros/cons? -- Aleksei Ivanov LeaderTelecom -- При ответе сохраняйте [Ticket#-] в теме письма. --- С уважением, Алексей Иванов Генеральный директор ООО "ЛидерТелеком" Тел.: 8(495)778-98-51 [1]www.LeaderTelecom.ru URL: [2]http://www.InstantSSL.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Comodo URL: [3]http://Symantec.Leadertelecom.ru/ - SSL-сертификаты Symantec (Verisign) URL: [4]http://www.Thawte.su/ - SSL-сертификаты Thawte URL: [5]http://www.HostingConsult.ru/ - Лицензии связи, IP-адреса и AS [1] http://www.leadertelecom.ru [2] http://www.instantssl.su/ [3] http://symantec.leadertelecom.ru [4] http://www.thawte.su/ [5] http://www.hostingconsult.ru/
Aleksei, what is the point of your proposal? -- Sergey Monday, August 11, 2014, 5:04:30 PM, you wrote: LL> Dear Sirs, LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons? LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Sergey,
what is the point of your proposal? I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool.
Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR. -- Aleksei LL> Dear Sirs, LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons? LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why? Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote:
Sergey,
what is the point of your proposal? I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool.
Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR.
-- Aleksei
LL> Dear Sirs,
LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons?
LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Dear Sergey, > I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Ok. I thinked that I wrote not very clear. > Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast. If the last /8 starts from digth "185" then we can see thansfers from companies: 23.01.2013 "TOP NET" PJSC 15.05.2013 CallWithMe 01.07.2013 VERIXI SPRL 04.07.2013 PJSC "Fars Telecommunication Company" 09.07.2013 Aria Web Development LLC 16.10.2013 Pars Fonoun Ofogh Information Technology and Communications Company LTD 17.12.2013 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 02.01.2014 Sara Rebollido Sueiro 24.01.2014 NOV'IT SAS 27.01.2014 Flex Networks Services B.V. 27.01.2014 IPhouse B.V. 27.01.2014 NLTM B.V. 04.02.2014 Dark Group Ltd 04.02.2014 Froehlich-Reisen GmbH 05.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Skylogic Polska Sp. Z.o.o. 28.02.2014 Netfactor Iletisim Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi 13.03.2014 LLC Arksys 21.03.2014 Xite Group BV 25.03.2014 ANDRZEJ BACINSKI trading as PUMPS & SYSTEMS 10.04.2014 LEVEL IP ITALIA S.R.L. 29.04.2014 STIS Engineering co. LTD 06.05.2014 Santrex Internet Services Ltd. 08.05.2014 AnDilo AB 13.05.2014 GLASHELDER BV 15.05.2014 Reseau Stella SARL 16.05.2014 Connect-it Telecom BV 16.05.2014 Mobile Communications (MOCO) BV 02.06.2014 A.M. Bayhan is trading as "DediColo Services" 02.06.2014 DediColo B.V. 04.06.2014 CLOUDGLOBAL FRANCE SAS 06.06.2014 Optimal IT Development SRL 20.06.2014 BIKS+ Ltd 20.06.2014 CJSC ADVANTAGE TELECOM 26.06.2014 International Communication company Persian Sheetsan Ltd. 10.07.2014 TELECABLE LTD 23.07.2014 "StoTelecom" Ltd. 23.07.2014 Michiel Muhlenbaumer 29.07.2014 EMY AUTO BEST SRL 30.07.2014 Host Sailor Ltd. 31.07.2014 Van Veen Beheer BV 04.08.2014 WBS Consulting Czech Republic s.r.o. -- Aleksei 11.08.2014 21:58 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why? Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote: > Sergey, > > > what is the point of your proposal? > I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool. > > Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR. > > -- > Aleksei > > LL> Dear Sirs, > > LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of > LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already > LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. > LL> Any Pros/cons? > > LL> -- > LL> Aleksei Ivanov > LL> LeaderTelecom > > >
Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast.
I see. You mentioned 37 transfers in 2014, that equal to /17,/20,/22. Is this number significant enough to develop the policy change? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 21:49, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote:
Dear Sergey,
I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Ok. I thinked that I wrote not very clear.
Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only?
Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast.
If the last /8 starts from digth "185" then we can see thansfers from companies: 23.01.2013 "TOP NET" PJSC 15.05.2013 CallWithMe 01.07.2013 VERIXI SPRL 04.07.2013 PJSC "Fars Telecommunication Company" 09.07.2013 Aria Web Development LLC 16.10.2013 Pars Fonoun Ofogh Information Technology and Communications Company LTD 17.12.2013 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 02.01.2014 Sara Rebollido Sueiro 24.01.2014 NOV'IT SAS 27.01.2014 Flex Networks Services B.V. 27.01.2014 IPhouse B.V. 27.01.2014 NLTM B.V. 04.02.2014 Dark Group Ltd 04.02.2014 Froehlich-Reisen GmbH 05.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Skylogic Polska Sp. Z.o.o. 28.02.2014 Netfactor Iletisim Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi 13.03.2014 LLC Arksys 21.03.2014 Xite Group BV 25.03.2014 ANDRZEJ BACINSKI trading as PUMPS & SYSTEMS 10.04.2014 LEVEL IP ITALIA S.R.L. 29.04.2014 STIS Engineering co. LTD 06.05.2014 Santrex Internet Services Ltd. 08.05.2014 AnDilo AB 13.05.2014 GLASHELDER BV 15.05.2014 Reseau Stella SARL 16.05.2014 Connect-it Telecom BV 16.05.2014 Mobile Communications (MOCO) BV 02.06.2014 A.M. Bayhan is trading as "DediColo Services" 02.06.2014 DediColo B.V. 04.06.2014 CLOUDGLOBAL FRANCE SAS 06.06.2014 Optimal IT Development SRL 20.06.2014 BIKS+ Ltd 20.06.2014 CJSC ADVANTAGE TELECOM 26.06.2014 International Communication company Persian Sheetsan Ltd. 10.07.2014 TELECABLE LTD 23.07.2014 "StoTelecom" Ltd. 23.07.2014 Michiel Muhlenbaumer 29.07.2014 EMY AUTO BEST SRL 30.07.2014 Host Sailor Ltd. 31.07.2014 Van Veen Beheer BV 04.08.2014 WBS Consulting Czech Republic s.r.o.
-- Aleksei
11.08.2014 21:58 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal.
Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why?
Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only?
-- Sergey
On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote:
Sergey,
what is the point of your proposal? I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool.
Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR.
-- Aleksei
LL> Dear Sirs,
LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons?
LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Sergey,
I see. You mentioned 37 transfers in 2014, that equal to /17,/20,/22. Is this number significant enough to develop the policy change?
I think, yes. While amont of such transfers from last /8 will increase anyway. Sergey, what is your opinion? -- Aleksei 12.08.2014 03:23 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а):
Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast.
Dear Sergey,
I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your
Ok. I thinked that I wrote not very clear.
Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only?
Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast.
If the last /8 starts from digth "185" then we can see thansfers from companies: 23.01.2013 "TOP NET" PJSC 15.05.2013 CallWithMe 01.07.2013 VERIXI SPRL 04.07.2013 PJSC "Fars Telecommunication Company" 09.07.2013 Aria Web Development LLC 16.10.2013 Pars Fonoun Ofogh Information Technology and Communications Company LTD 17.12.2013 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 02.01.2014 Sara Rebollido Sueiro 24.01.2014 NOV'IT SAS 27.01.2014 Flex Networks Services B.V. 27.01.2014 IPhouse B.V. 27.01.2014 NLTM B.V. 04.02.2014 Dark Group Ltd 04.02.2014 Froehlich-Reisen GmbH 05.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Skylogic Polska Sp. Z.o.o. 28.02.2014 Netfactor Iletisim Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi 13.03.2014 LLC Arksys 21.03.2014 Xite Group BV 25.03.2014 ANDRZEJ BACINSKI trading as PUMPS & SYSTEMS 10.04.2014 LEVEL IP ITALIA S.R.L. 29.04.2014 STIS Engineering co. LTD 06.05.2014 Santrex Internet Services Ltd. 08.05.2014 AnDilo AB 13.05.2014 GLASHELDER BV 15.05.2014 Reseau Stella SARL 16.05.2014 Connect-it Telecom BV 16.05.2014 Mobile Communications (MOCO) BV 02.06.2014 A.M. Bayhan is trading as "DediColo Services" 02.06.2014 DediColo B.V. 04.06.2014 CLOUDGLOBAL FRANCE SAS 06.06.2014 Optimal IT Development SRL 20.06.2014 BIKS+ Ltd 20.06.2014 CJSC ADVANTAGE TELECOM 26.06.2014 International Communication company Persian Sheetsan Ltd. 10.07.2014 TELECABLE LTD 23.07.2014 "StoTelecom" Ltd. 23.07.2014 Michiel Muhlenbaumer 29.07.2014 EMY AUTO BEST SRL 30.07.2014 Host Sailor Ltd. 31.07.2014 Van Veen Beheer BV 04.08.2014 WBS Consulting Czech Republic s.r.o. -- Aleksei
11.08.2014 21:58 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal.
Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation
Why?
Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only?
-- Sergey
On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote:
Sergey,
what is the point of your proposal? I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool.
Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016
I see. You mentioned 37 transfers in 2014, that equal to /17,/20,/22. Is this number significant enough to develop the policy change? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 21:49, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru> wrote: proposal. transfer? this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR.
-- Aleksei LL> Dear Sirs,
LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons?
LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Hi Aleksei, Seeing some of the LIR’s I’ve done some work for, I can guarantee that not all transfers that are in the list are being transferred to sell outside their corporate structure. I’ve asked on this same list about 1.5 years ago, if it was required to close the option to merge LIR’s which already have their final /8 /22 or not allow the option for transfers from a final /8 /22 to an LIR which already received their final /8 /22.. It wasn’t required was the reply, so I didn’t created the policy to plug it. Currently I don’t see that plugging this will benefit the accuracy of the registry, so for me, I would not support this. To give an indication, not allowing a transfer from a new LIR will not fix the practice or what you try to accomplish ... Either you still have the transfers, but they are not registered .. OR they find other ways to do it, which are not listed on the transfer listing page. Regards, Erik Bais Van: address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] Namens LeaderTelecom Ltd. Verzonden: maandag 11 augustus 2014 21:50 Aan: sergey@devnull.ru CC: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Onderwerp: Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014081101013263] Transfer from last /8 Dear Sergey,
I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Ok. I thinked that I wrote not very clear.
Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only?
Yes. I afaraid that last /8 will be used for creating new LIRs only reselling IPv4-adresses. As a result last /8 will be run out very fast. If the last /8 starts from digth "185" then we can see thansfers from companies: 23.01.2013 "TOP NET" PJSC 15.05.2013 CallWithMe 01.07.2013 VERIXI SPRL 04.07.2013 PJSC "Fars Telecommunication Company" 09.07.2013 Aria Web Development LLC 16.10.2013 Pars Fonoun Ofogh Information Technology and Communications Company LTD 17.12.2013 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 02.01.2014 Sara Rebollido Sueiro 24.01.2014 NOV'IT SAS 27.01.2014 Flex Networks Services B.V. 27.01.2014 IPhouse B.V. 27.01.2014 NLTM B.V. 04.02.2014 Dark Group Ltd 04.02.2014 Froehlich-Reisen GmbH 05.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Julian Alberto Gomez Hernandez trading as "Adjenet Networks" 13.02.2014 Skylogic Polska Sp. Z.o.o. 28.02.2014 Netfactor Iletisim Hizmetleri Limited Sirketi 13.03.2014 LLC Arksys 21.03.2014 Xite Group BV 25.03.2014 ANDRZEJ BACINSKI trading as PUMPS & SYSTEMS 10.04.2014 LEVEL IP ITALIA S.R.L. 29.04.2014 STIS Engineering co. LTD 06.05.2014 Santrex Internet Services Ltd. 08.05.2014 AnDilo AB 13.05.2014 GLASHELDER BV 15.05.2014 Reseau Stella SARL 16.05.2014 Connect-it Telecom BV 16.05.2014 Mobile Communications (MOCO) BV 02.06.2014 A.M. Bayhan is trading as "DediColo Services" 02.06.2014 DediColo B.V. 04.06.2014 CLOUDGLOBAL FRANCE SAS 06.06.2014 Optimal IT Development SRL 20.06.2014 BIKS+ Ltd 20.06.2014 CJSC ADVANTAGE TELECOM 26.06.2014 International Communication company Persian Sheetsan Ltd. 10.07.2014 TELECABLE LTD 23.07.2014 "StoTelecom" Ltd. 23.07.2014 Michiel Muhlenbaumer 29.07.2014 EMY AUTO BEST SRL 30.07.2014 Host Sailor Ltd. 31.07.2014 Van Veen Beheer BV 04.08.2014 WBS Consulting Czech Republic s.r.o. -- Aleksei 11.08.2014 21:58 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): Aleksei, I am able to read the written text :) but I don’t see the reason for your proposal. Do you consider unfair single (at least in first 2 years) allocation transfer? Why? Or maybe you would like to limit the practice when companies being created for requesting allocation only? -- Sergey On 11 Aug 2014, at 18:09, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <info@leadertelecom.ru <mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru> > wrote:
Sergey,
what is the point of your proposal? I propose don't allow transfers from last /8 during first 2 years afer date of allocation from RIPE NCC pool.
Example: some LIR get IPv4 from last /8 at 11.08.2014. In period 11.08.2014 - 10.08.2016 transfer of it's IPs are not allowed. Since 11.08.2016 this LIR can transfer IPv4 to any LIR.
-- Aleksei
LL> Dear Sirs,
LL> I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of LL> allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already LL> common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8. LL> Any Pros/cons?
LL> -- LL> Aleksei Ivanov LL> LeaderTelecom
Hi Aleksei, On 11.08.2014 17:04, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8.
I have sympathy for this request, as I do think it is wrong to apply for an IPv4 block from the last /8 if you simply do not need it and just want to generate some additional income. But, I'm afraid the market will do these transfers anyway. And if these transfers happen I'd rather have them supervised and tracked by RIPE. Regards André
Dear André,
But, I'm afraid the market will do these transfers anyway. And if these transfers happen I'd rather have them supervised and tracked by RIPE.
1. RIPE will get request for transfer. 2. If IPv4 block is from last /8, then check date of allocation for this LIR. 3. If date_of_allocation + 2 years < date_now then allow transfer; else - reject. It is very simple. -- Aleksei Ivanov 11.08.2014 19:43 - Andre Keller написал(а): Hi Aleksei, On 11.08.2014 17:04, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
I suggest to allow transfer from the last /8 only in 2 years after date of allocation from RIPE NCC. I see in the transfer list that this is already common practice to transfer /22 from the last /8.
I have sympathy for this request, as I do think it is wrong to apply for an IPv4 block from the last /8 if you simply do not need it and just want to generate some additional income. But, I'm afraid the market will do these transfers anyway. And if these transfers happen I'd rather have them supervised and tracked by RIPE. Regards André
Hi Aleksei, On 11.08.2014 18:15, LeaderTelecom Ltd. wrote:
1. RIPE will get request for transfer. 2. If IPv4 block is from last /8, then check date of allocation for this LIR. 3. If date_of_allocation + 2 years < date_now then allow transfer; else - reject.
It is very simple.
well the problem is, that when potential transfer parties know that RIPE will reject a request, they wont present it to RIPE but do some contracts on their own. But they certainly will not refrain from the transfer if they need the addresses. This leads to inaccurate data in the RIPE database. Regards André
On Mon, 11 Aug 2014, Andre Keller wrote:
But, I'm afraid the market will do these transfers anyway. And if these transfers happen I'd rather have them supervised and tracked by RIPE.
I agree completely. Introducing a policy like this is just hand-waving, it's not enforcable. Also, can we please stop trying to squeeze blood and fairness out of the IPv4 stone? We know it's not fair, but as far as I can tell, nothing has changed the past 3-5 years so let's just leave the policy as-is. I want for RIPE to keep the database correct and to have as little other work and administration as possible with IPv4. The only way to make more IPv4 addresses available on the market to the people who need them is to create a working transfer market with money involved. Yes, this is unfair but so is the fact that I currently live in an apartment that cost 0.3% of current market value to buy in 1961 when it was originally built. Let's make sure we have a liquid IPv4 address market so people who need addresses short term can get them directly from others without creating huge hassles which only means specialists (brokers) can profit from it. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se
participants (5)
-
Andre Keller -
Erik Bais -
LeaderTelecom Ltd. -
Mikael Abrahamsson -
Sergey Myasoedov