I am going to try to work with Brian, off-list, to try to wordsmith and do whatever else is necessary in order to convert the informal proposals that I posted here recently into formal ones. While I am working on that however, I would very much like to ask a very simple question... What exactly are The Rules with respect to IPv4 address block allocations? What does one need to show, exactly, in order to either get or, more importantly, to keep, say, a /21 ? Assume for the sake of argument that I received a /21 from some RIPE LiR one year ago. Assume that I never put _anything_ in it. Assume that RIPE NCC "audits" me. What happens, exactly? Regards, rfg
Hi, On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 05:14:23PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
What exactly are The Rules with respect to IPv4 address block allocations? What does one need to show, exactly, in order to either get or, more importantly, to keep, say, a /21 ?
"nothing you can present to the RIPE NCC will give you a /21 of IPv4 space". IPv4 has run out, and we're in the last /8 policy - which means "if you are a member (LIR) and present the need for a single IPv4 address, you will get a /22, no more, no less", and this /22 is only given out *once* per LIR. To keep it, you have to pay your LIR fees, be truthful about the stuff in your contract (company details etc), and don't let a judge convict you for a crime.
Assume for the sake of argument that I received a /21 from some RIPE LiR one year ago. Assume that I never put _anything_ in it. Assume that RIPE NCC "audits" me. What happens, exactly?
If you got the /21 *from a LIR*, you will not be audited, because you're not dealing with the NCC. If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try to ensure that whatever you registered is OK - if you have never registered anything, nothing will happen, unless they find lies in your contractual information (company doesn't exist, etc.) - in *that* case they will close down the LIR and take back the space. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
In message <20130627111402.GZ2706@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Assume for the sake of argument that I received a /21 from some RIPE LiR one year ago. Assume that I never put _anything_ in it. Assume that RIPE NCC "audits" me. What happens, exactly?
If you got the /21 *from a LIR*, you will not be audited, because you're not dealing with the NCC.
If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try to ensure that whatever you registered is OK
Please definie the meaning of "OK" in this context.
if you have never registered anything, nothing will happen, unless they find lies in your contractual information (company doesn't exist, etc.) - in *that* case they will close down the LIR and take back the space.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, if, say, a given LIR obtained, say, a /17 two years ago, and then just sat on it, and never put a single thing in it in all that time, there is nothing that can or will be done about that colossal waste of (supposedly) precious IPv4 space. Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly? And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said? (Please understand that I'm not trying to be rude to anybody. I'm just trying to understand the current policy.) Regards, rfg
Hi, On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:32PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20130627111402.GZ2706@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Assume for the sake of argument that I received a /21 from some RIPE LiR one year ago. Assume that I never put _anything_ in it. Assume that RIPE NCC "audits" me. What happens, exactly?
If you got the /21 *from a LIR*, you will not be audited, because you're not dealing with the NCC.
If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try to ensure that whatever you registered is OK
Please definie the meaning of "OK" in this context.
Technically OK, as in "no overlaps in the network objects", policy-wise OK, as in "no assignments bigger than permitted by your assignment window", and sometimes they ask for the justification documents for a given assignment, aka "the form that needs to be filled in".
if you have never registered anything, nothing will happen, unless they find lies in your contractual information (company doesn't exist, etc.) - in *that* case they will close down the LIR and take back the space.
So, if I am understanding you correctly, if, say, a given LIR obtained, say, a /17 two years ago, and then just sat on it, and never put a single thing in it in all that time, there is nothing that can or will be done about that colossal waste of (supposedly) precious IPv4 space. Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly?
Yes. (Though I disagree with you on the preciousness of IPv4 space. Reclaiming even a full /8 would have pushed out the IPv4 run-out in the RIPE region by a few months, but not changed the fundamental issue of "there is no way to make IPv4 last")
And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said?
Yes. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
In message <20130627200918.GO2706@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:32PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20130627111402.GZ2706@Space.Net>,=20 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try to ensure that whatever you registered is OK
Please definie the meaning of "OK" in this context.
Technically OK, as in "no overlaps in the network objects", policy-wise OK, as in "no assignments bigger than permitted by your assignment window", and sometimes they ask for the justification documents for a given assignment, aka "the form that needs to be filled in".
Sometimes?? Why not all the time?
So, if I am understanding you correctly, if, say, a given LIR obtained, say, a /17 two years ago, and then just sat on it, and never put a single thing in it in all that time, there is nothing that can or will be done about that colossal waste of (supposedly) precious IPv4 space. Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly?
Yes.
Am I really the only person on the planet who thinks this is absurd?
(Though I disagree with you on the preciousness of IPv4 space.
Fine. I am an authorized Wikipedia Editor. Please provide me with some new correct verbage to replace the following utterly innacurate section of the relevant Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion "On 31 January 2011, IANA announced it had exhausted its free pool of IPv4 addresses (from which IP blocks were allocated to regional RIRs), the exhaustion of the RIRs APNIC on 15 April 2011 and RIPE NCC on 14 September 2012..." ^^^^^^^^ I suppose that the word "exhaustion" has a different meaning depending upon one's own individual situation. Certainly, if you are one of the luck few who had the foresight to start hording and to squirrel away a whole lot of IPv4 space some time ago, then right now I am sure that you are sitting pretty, and saying to yourself "Shortage? What shortage?" Other people (and companis) may perhaps not have had the same level of foresight.
Reclaiming even a full /8 would have pushed out the IPv4 run-out in the RIPE region by a few months, but not changed the fundamental issue of "there is no way to make IPv4 last")
Yes, you're right and that is a very good point. So since that is all true, let's do this... Let's resolve to give away any and all remaining IPv4 space to crooks, thieves, and homeless people until it really and truly is all gone. That will force everyone to buy all new IPv6 equipment, which will be good for the economy in Europe, and maybe even bring it out of its current slump. Hey! I own Cisco stock! This idea works for me! Is everyone else on board? (Apparently, I don't even need to ask.)
And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said?
Yes.
So basically, the idea that I had of having these kinds of cooks "audited" is utterly futile and pointless, yes? OK. That's it. I'm outta here. I had hoped that something positive could be accomplished within this group but now I know that I was just deluding myself. Thanks everybody. Take care. I wish you all a nice life. Regards, rfg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 27/06/13 23:50, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said?
Yes. So basically, the idea that I had of having these kinds of cooks "audited" is utterly futile and pointless, yes?
OK. That's it. I'm outta here. I had hoped that something positive could be accomplished within this group but now I know that I was just deluding myself.
Thanks everybody. Take care. I wish you all a nice life. Address space is not some commodity that you (or anyone else) should assume to own. Instead of turning your focus towards LEGACY protocols, that should have been discarded years ago try realizing that IP address space is a virtual commodity, limited only by the tech capabilities and foresight of the designers building it. The fact that someone is taking their time to attemp freeing resources from a legacy protocol just proves how much pointless buirocracy there is in this world.
Maybe turn it down a notch? You forget this is a decentralized network without a central authority, there's only so much a RIR can do... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRzROAAAoJEKDRRlJA5M0IC7UP/R52f/ddswSWLymPFGo7d9xY qqH+zI94mfYLw8NBGYaqdyCuc/LhjA1rW2ziP4wkaznc2Pz7FdgJhWdL//CJNaLz /WBAdMPMcFMFyvzzFQjcazJCIv6vUN1ePH1Y8WvjGpBMM1uIC5bHpiJ9Jmau94nk hCkdVw8JEfPsCFdOsDX9k1rzQChyCVVNlfXLsHaPkz75Er38hO4KOmAQzE0cp7Xw +gmTZG6Ku8Lzl19Nr7O6WRfzZXi5NbEikpe0+yU4dGr75sE7Xig9CodDrLzVO42D Kkxu676AYKtcXWaC1kaJzozD25ESM0PEvhkoJTOEC7ZOTtieKRs6ToKpe21kyEhH pw56jPUftDTDFdgDXdDwA078fD/dRjYvMFzGNgWi5tFmRymJO9yCv9EYQrPM9TKs vkHhirsMPSq9Yn88EAdTaZmG5Hogjcp3d/OtFfkEvHgARJNRXzrJ+e79nS3UGq9L iGQWv+pi7hiTmeH45e3cRT5TxLsOAq0sHUNjkz96nnrbZDb8QWofzBNhnaYEEZ1l Cp2PvoR3t5uA6nJ8hy7h8pTYKbcgG+66o1c0Tp8C1U8Tb4S/oHJyu3+PA4PnSPh2 YDrKN6cHlhQpipiGhbI68sJCfusSEoo1koYicoaZbaLVsYPRb+thekMoGBRfAQ83 DeOp5X5WSX+vgqf3xVok =5DpD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Nope. He is trying to convince the decision makers to keep those resources out of the hands of people who use them to our mutual detriment Do note that the same people who were getting themselves /15s are also getting themselves rather large v6 allocations. As soon as more places adopt v6 they will see much more of the same than they ever experienced on v4 Keep at the we are not the internet police meme though.. You people have far more IP space to squander in this manner so that future generations will surely thank you for the extensively poisoned IP and name space that they will inherit. Oh, v6 is never going to run out? I remember people saying exactly that when class A, B and C addresses were to be had for the asking. --srs (htc one x) On 28-Jun-2013 10:18 AM, "Saso G." <saso@eth.si> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27/06/13 23:50, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said?
Yes. So basically, the idea that I had of having these kinds of cooks "audited" is utterly futile and pointless, yes?
OK. That's it. I'm outta here. I had hoped that something positive could be accomplished within this group but now I know that I was just deluding myself.
Thanks everybody. Take care. I wish you all a nice life. Address space is not some commodity that you (or anyone else) should assume to own. Instead of turning your focus towards LEGACY protocols, that should have been discarded years ago try realizing that IP address space is a virtual commodity, limited only by the tech capabilities and foresight of the designers building it. The fact that someone is taking their time to attemp freeing resources from a legacy protocol just proves how much pointless buirocracy there is in this world.
Maybe turn it down a notch? You forget this is a decentralized network without a central authority, there's only so much a RIR can do...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRzROAAAoJEKDRRlJA5M0IC7UP/R52f/ddswSWLymPFGo7d9xY qqH+zI94mfYLw8NBGYaqdyCuc/LhjA1rW2ziP4wkaznc2Pz7FdgJhWdL//CJNaLz /WBAdMPMcFMFyvzzFQjcazJCIv6vUN1ePH1Y8WvjGpBMM1uIC5bHpiJ9Jmau94nk hCkdVw8JEfPsCFdOsDX9k1rzQChyCVVNlfXLsHaPkz75Er38hO4KOmAQzE0cp7Xw +gmTZG6Ku8Lzl19Nr7O6WRfzZXi5NbEikpe0+yU4dGr75sE7Xig9CodDrLzVO42D Kkxu676AYKtcXWaC1kaJzozD25ESM0PEvhkoJTOEC7ZOTtieKRs6ToKpe21kyEhH pw56jPUftDTDFdgDXdDwA078fD/dRjYvMFzGNgWi5tFmRymJO9yCv9EYQrPM9TKs vkHhirsMPSq9Yn88EAdTaZmG5Hogjcp3d/OtFfkEvHgARJNRXzrJ+e79nS3UGq9L iGQWv+pi7hiTmeH45e3cRT5TxLsOAq0sHUNjkz96nnrbZDb8QWofzBNhnaYEEZ1l Cp2PvoR3t5uA6nJ8hy7h8pTYKbcgG+66o1c0Tp8C1U8Tb4S/oHJyu3+PA4PnSPh2 YDrKN6cHlhQpipiGhbI68sJCfusSEoo1koYicoaZbaLVsYPRb+thekMoGBRfAQ83 DeOp5X5WSX+vgqf3xVok =5DpD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:34:17AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Oh, v6 is never going to run out? I remember people saying exactly that when class A, B and C addresses were to be had for the asking.
Learn math, then come back. Thanks. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
I know the size of the v6 namespace Remember that we are currently working with a smaller effective size.. The allocated part of v6, with martian filters to block out the rest And out of that.. Well, the more space poorly administered allocation policies squander by handing them to abusers without very much due diligence, the more trouble the rest of us face As for the future, I won't try predicting what the internet will be like and what devices from where will connect over v6. I would just tell you to avoid history repeating itself so we don't look back with regret at this conversation after a decade or two --srs (htc one x) On 28-Jun-2013 1:15 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:34:17AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Oh, v6 is never going to run out? I remember people saying exactly that when class A, B and C addresses were to be had for the asking.
Learn math, then come back. Thanks.
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:27:19PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I know the size of the v6 namespace Remember that we are currently working with a smaller effective size.. The allocated part of v6, with martian filters to block out the rest
And out of that.. Well, the more space poorly administered allocation policies squander by handing them to abusers without very much due diligence, the more trouble the rest of us face
I'm aware of all that, but I *can* do the math. Inside RIPE's /12, there are *one million* /32s.
As for the future, I won't try predicting what the internet will be like and what devices from where will connect over v6. I would just tell you to avoid history repeating itself so we don't look back with regret at this conversation after a decade or two
I've heard that argument so many times over the last 16 years where the much more important goal should have been "get IPv6 deployed!" instead of worrying about "not giving out IPv6 addresses to <somesortofentity>, as they might run out!". We're inside a /12, which has LOTS of space left. That /12 is inside a /3, which is barely touched (5 /12s out of 512 allocated). And *that* /3 has 6 more to be used, if we really mess up. I'll start to reconsider my position if we manage to fill the RIPE /12 by giving out standard-size allocations (/32) in the next 20 years. I'll start to *worry* if we fill half of 2000::/3 in the next 30 years. I'll publically admit I was wrong about my IPv6 use predictions if we fill FP001 (2000::/3) in the next 40 years. ... and *then*, we have people that can learn from what happened in FP001 and get it right in one of the next FPs. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
There has been little or no reason to adopt v6 so far, other than as an alternate means of connectivity to reach what, geek operated mail, ftp and rsync servers for Linux distros and assorted open source software? With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, and with newer generations of devices yet to ship with v6 only stacks but that's a matter of time... That is when you will start to see the true uptake and growth of v6. I rather suspect what i predict may well happen in our lifetimes, or even in the couple of decades of years before I retire --srs (htc one x) On 28-Jun-2013 1:37 PM, "Gert Doering" <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:27:19PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
I know the size of the v6 namespace Remember that we are currently working with a smaller effective size..
The
allocated part of v6, with martian filters to block out the rest
And out of that.. Well, the more space poorly administered allocation policies squander by handing them to abusers without very much due diligence, the more trouble the rest of us face
I'm aware of all that, but I *can* do the math.
Inside RIPE's /12, there are *one million* /32s.
As for the future, I won't try predicting what the internet will be like and what devices from where will connect over v6. I would just tell you to avoid history repeating itself so we don't look back with regret at this conversation after a decade or two
I've heard that argument so many times over the last 16 years where the much more important goal should have been "get IPv6 deployed!" instead of worrying about "not giving out IPv6 addresses to <somesortofentity>, as they might run out!".
We're inside a /12, which has LOTS of space left.
That /12 is inside a /3, which is barely touched (5 /12s out of 512 allocated).
And *that* /3 has 6 more to be used, if we really mess up.
I'll start to reconsider my position if we manage to fill the RIPE /12 by giving out standard-size allocations (/32) in the next 20 years.
I'll start to *worry* if we fill half of 2000::/3 in the next 30 years.
I'll publically admit I was wrong about my IPv6 use predictions if we fill FP001 (2000::/3) in the next 40 years.
... and *then*, we have people that can learn from what happened in FP001 and get it right in one of the next FPs.
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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Hi, On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:47:03PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
There has been little or no reason to adopt v6 so far, other than as an alternate means of connectivity to reach what, geek operated mail, ftp and rsync servers for Linux distros and assorted open source software?
Uh. I'd say "providing IP connectivity to end users, without having to go through a carrier-grade nat at their provider" seems to be compelling enough that quite a number of large-scale providers in europe have started to assign a /56 to all new customers...
With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, and with newer generations of devices yet to ship with v6 only stacks but that's a matter of time... That is when you will start to see the true uptake and growth of v6. I rather suspect what i predict may well happen in our lifetimes, or even in the couple of decades of years before I retire
"True uptake and growth" will happen in terms of traffic ratio, actual usage ratio *inside* the IPv6 prefixes, but not so much in terms of "how many entities are all of a sudden becoming a RIR member to get IPv6 address space". There's currently about 10.000 RIPE members - which is well inside the bounds that can be served by RIPE's /12. Why should entities that are not RIPE members today become one, just because of IPv6 uptake? And, more interesting, why would the number go up by a factor of 50, to actually threaten to fill the /12? 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Jun 28, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
There has been little or no reason to adopt v6 so far, other than as an I have a great reason: I am out of v4 addresses and I want to turn up new customers.
With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, There is no noticeable v4 market and NAT is only relevant on the access side. I don't do access.
-- ciao, Marco
The access side is about the largest adopter of whatever IP connectivity works for them wih a minimum of effort. So decisions will vary across providers, sure. On Friday, June 28, 2013, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jun 28, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com <javascript:;>> wrote:
There has been little or no reason to adopt v6 so far, other than as an I have a great reason: I am out of v4 addresses and I want to turn up new customers.
With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, There is no noticeable v4 market and NAT is only relevant on the access side. I don't do access.
-- ciao, Marco
-- --srs (iPad)
Hi Marco,
With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, There is no noticeable v4 market and NAT is only relevant on the access side. I don't do access.
I have to disagree with you, there IS a v4 market .. and people are already in pain or are looking at how to fix their issue. Going native v6 isn't the fix for most of them, a majority of the LIR's NEED to run dual-stack for a noticeable time ahead. Not because they can't run native v6, but because others don't run v6 at all. Carrier Grade Nat (CGN) will break stuff in certain scenario's like VOIP, some streaming video's, Xbox live connectivity and will cost you a lot in storage for (abuse) logging. You will require boxes that aren't cheap either.. and in order to be able to pinpoint that one customer that did a spam-run or portscan (as an example) you will need to know exactly who used IP X, tcp ports range Z to Y at timestamp. And with the current EU Data Retention Act, you may be forced to store that information between 6 months to 24 months for legal reasons. (your mileage may vary depending on the country you work in ) To give you an indication, a 1 milj. subscriber LIR, will generate per subscriber about 5 to 96 Mb of logs per day (just headers from the CGN) that is about 1Pbyte storage per 1M subscribers .. per month .. - http://pc.denog.de/system/attachments/5/original/07-Grundemann-Carrier_Grade _NAT.pdf?1353317223 See this very nice presentation from CableLabs about CGN from Denog4 in November 2012. To give an indication, 1 Pb of storage will cost you about 6 racks filled with disks, setting you back only in colocation cost about 5k US$ and roughly an equal amount in power cost per month. So keeping it online alone will have an operating cost of 10k US$, not including cost of purchase of the storage or management of the information on it. So if you, for instance in my case, live in the Netherlands, you NEED to store the information 12 months. Does that give enough background about why people are looking into the IPv4 market ? The reason why people tend to say there is no v4 market, is not because it is not here ... it is because the transfer policy is currently for a lot of companies to restrictive. This results in movement of IP ranges not being updated in the actual registry. Think about PI IPv4 being sold, but not transferred in ownership to the new 'owner' Why ? Because the transfer policy doesn't allow for PI transfers... So sometimes a side letter is made, money is provided and things stay as it is in the registry. Sometimes it is even sold, without such a letter I've seen. The 24 month cool-down period for a range after a transfer ? Come on, if money is to be made, it is foolish to think that people will take the high road and sit on their resources. The current policies don't state that you can't move an LIR between legal entities ... or just buy the complete legal entity that holds the LIR. (stock transfers) There IS a market and people DO relocate resources in the above mentioned ways... Wake up and smell the new reality. The more restrictive and difficult the policies are, the more creative people will become. Should it be frowned upon ? Perhaps, but most of the people doing it, don't care if someone would ask them why they would do it. Especially if serious money is to be made (or if they can proceed signing up customers in the years to come) WE as a community should make the transfer policies as transparent as possible to make sure that the registry is up to date, because it is not possible to restrict transfers. By maintaining all these transfer limitations, we will not prevent the transfers, the registry will not be up to date AND if people that have a v4 surplus will move their resources to people who want to compensate the current owners for it, so be it. At least the un-used IP's get used by those that are willing/able to put money on the table for it. The RIPE NCC did a great job in the past in fair distribution, but their role isn't in distribution anymore, it is to keep the registry up to date. That is their #1 role for the future. Sorry for the long reply, but people who still think that there is no v4 Market haven't paid much attention to what is happening around them. See also the growing list of transfers on the RIPE website: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-o f-transfers Regards, Erik Bais
On Jun 29, Erik Bais <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
I have to disagree with you, there IS a v4 market .. and people are already in pain or are looking at how to fix their issue. I see people trying to buy IPv4 space (even if most of them are spammers). I do not see many people trying to sell IPv4 space.
Why sell now while the price is still going up? -- ciao, Marco
'Marco d'Itri' wrote:
On Jun 29, Erik Bais<ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
I have to disagree with you, there IS a v4 market .. and people are already in pain or are looking at how to fix their issue. I see people trying to buy IPv4 space (even if most of them are spammers). I do not see many people trying to sell IPv4 space.
Why sell now while the price is still going up?
Funny enough we do get a lot of requests to give IP space away during the last few month and we never had these kind of requests before. Usually the interest drops, when we tell them, that we only use our allocation for services in our housing centers :o) This increased interest could be, because IPv4 space is getting rare or it could also be because of the new abuse-c. Usually our customers are quite happy, if they dont have to manage an abuse address themself. But its funny with these kind of offers we get now, they always offer to handle abuse reports themself :o) Thats make me thinking: - what about an LIR that does not know, what his "customer" is doing ? lets say, he sells the IP space, it gets announced somewhere in the world, he does not route it, it not his AS anymore and surely not his abuse-c How can he control the initial usage of the "customers" netblocks ? How could he be informed by others, that his "customer" is a professional spammer ? Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
Repost as my other email address wasn't subscribed to the list. -----Original Message----- From: Erik Bais [mailto:ebais@a2b-internet.com] Sent: zaterdag 29 juni 2013 12:57 To: 'Marco d'Itri'; anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [anti-abuse-wg] Bye Bye Hi Marco,
With some majors like Google starting to adopt it, and with only a few years left for a v4 aftermarket, carrier grade nat etc to have any effect, There is no noticeable v4 market and NAT is only relevant on the access side. I don't do access.
I have to disagree with you, there IS a v4 market .. and people are already in pain or are looking at how to fix their issue. Going native v6 isn't the fix for most of them, a majority of the LIR's NEED to run dual-stack for a noticeable time ahead. Not because they can't run native v6, but because others don't run v6 at all. Carrier Grade Nat (CGN) will break stuff in certain scenario's like VOIP, some streaming video's, Xbox live connectivity and will cost you a lot in storage for (abuse) logging. You will require boxes that aren't cheap either.. and in order to be able to pinpoint that one customer that did a spam-run or portscan (as an example) you will need to know exactly who used IP X, tcp ports range Z to Y at timestamp. And with the current EU Data Retention Act, you may be forced to store that information between 6 months to 24 months for legal reasons. (your mileage may vary depending on the country you work in ) To give you an indication, a 1 milj. subscriber LIR, will generate per subscriber about 5 to 96 Mb of logs per day (just headers from the CGN) that is about 1Pbyte storage per 1M subscribers .. per month .. - http://pc.denog.de/system/attachments/5/original/07-Grundemann-Carrier_Grade... See this very nice presentation from CableLabs about CGN from Denog4 in November 2012. To give an indication, 1 Pb of storage will cost you about 6 racks filled with disks, setting you back only in colocation cost about 5k US$ and roughly an equal amount in power cost per month. So keeping it online alone will have an operating cost of 10k US$, not including cost of purchase of the storage or management of the information on it. So if you, for instance in my case, live in the Netherlands, you NEED to store the information 12 months. Does that give enough background about why people are looking into the IPv4 market ? The reason why people tend to say there is no v4 market, is not because it is not here ... it is because the transfer policy is currently for a lot of companies to restrictive. This results in movement of IP ranges not being updated in the actual registry. Think about PI IPv4 being sold, but not transferred in ownership to the new 'owner' Why ? Because the transfer policy doesn't allow for PI transfers... So sometimes a side letter is made, money is provided and things stay as it is in the registry. Sometimes it is even sold, without such a letter I've seen. The 24 month cool-down period for a range after a transfer ? Come on, if money is to be made, it is foolish to think that people will take the high road and sit on their resources. The current policies don't state that you can't move an LIR between legal entities ... or just buy the complete legal entity that holds the LIR. (stock transfers) There IS a market and people DO relocate resources in the above mentioned ways... Wake up and smell the new reality. The more restrictive and difficult the policies are, the more creative people will become. Should it be frowned upon ? Perhaps, but most of the people doing it, don't care if someone would ask them why they would do it. Especially if serious money is to be made (or if they can proceed signing up customers in the years to come) WE as a community should make the transfer policies as transparent as possible to make sure that the registry is up to date, because it is not possible to restrict transfers. By maintaining all these transfer limitations, we will not prevent the transfers, the registry will not be up to date AND if people that have a v4 surplus will move their resources to people who want to compensate the current owners for it, so be it. At least the un-used IP's get used by those that are willing/able to put money on the table for it. The RIPE NCC did a great job in the past in fair distribution, but their role isn't in distribution anymore, it is to keep the registry up to date. That is their #1 role for the future. Sorry for the long reply, but people who still think that there is no v4 Market haven't paid much attention to what is happening around them. See also the growing list of transfers on the RIPE website: https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/ipv4-transfers/table-o... Regards, Erik Bais
Hi, On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 02:50:16PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:32PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message <20130627111402.GZ2706@Space.Net>,=20 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try to ensure that whatever you registered is OK
Please definie the meaning of "OK" in this context.
Technically OK, as in "no overlaps in the network objects", policy-wise OK, as in "no assignments bigger than permitted by your assignment window", and sometimes they ask for the justification documents for a given assignment, aka "the form that needs to be filled in".
Sometimes?? Why not all the time?
Well, maybe the wording was not so good. I think they will always pick "some of the assignments" to look at the paperwork, but for reasons of scale, they are not asking for the paperwork for *all* your assignments (because that could be multiple thousand for a medium-sized business ISP).
So, if I am understanding you correctly, if, say, a given LIR obtained, say, a /17 two years ago, and then just sat on it, and never put a single thing in it in all that time, there is nothing that can or will be done about that colossal waste of (supposedly) precious IPv4 space. Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly?
Yes.
Am I really the only person on the planet who thinks this is absurd?
There seem to be a few, and we covered that topic in the address policy WG two meetings ago. The outcome was that "well, it's not in the policy documents, so the NCC has no lever to ever ask for return of space on the basis of it not being used" - which is understandably as these documents have been written under the assumption that ISPs grow, fill their space, ask for more, fill that, and ask for more again (and *that* is covered in great detail). This outcome was presented, and the WG didn't see the need to change the policy here - acknowledging, I'd say, the fact that it would cause lots of effort for minimal gain.
(Though I disagree with you on the preciousness of IPv4 space.
Fine. I am an authorized Wikipedia Editor. Please provide me with some new correct verbage to replace the following utterly innacurate section of the relevant Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion
"On 31 January 2011, IANA announced it had exhausted its free pool of IPv4 addresses (from which IP blocks were allocated to regional RIRs), the exhaustion of the RIRs APNIC on 15 April 2011 and RIPE NCC on 14 September 2012..." ^^^^^^^^
I suppose that the word "exhaustion" has a different meaning depending upon one's own individual situation. Certainly, if you are one of the luck few who had the foresight to start hording and to squirrel away a whole lot of IPv4 space some time ago, then right now I am sure that you are sitting pretty, and saying to yourself "Shortage? What shortage?"
Other people (and companis) may perhaps not have had the same level of foresight.
No, you're misunderstanding me. Whatever we do, 4 billion IPv4 addresses will not be sufficient to number Internet access for 6+ billion humans on earth. So it's important to get over the fact that IPv4 is *gone* and move ahead to the only alternative we have: IPv6. Spending lots of resources to stretch IPv4 for a few more months will mainly achieve a larger installed basis of IPv4-only gear that will then cause *more* effort converting towards IPv6 - and based on that, the RIPE community decided (the topic came up multiple times, and the outcome was always the same) to not invest lots of NCC time = member money in IPv4 reclaim activities. [..]
So since that is all true, let's do this... Let's resolve to give away any and all remaining IPv4 space to crooks, thieves, and homeless people until it really and truly is all gone. That will force everyone to buy all new IPv6 equipment, which will be good for the economy in Europe, and maybe even bring it out of its current slump.
Whoever in the RIPE region comes up, unless they are a convicted criminal, will get a single last /22 for their LIR. This is expected to last for a few more years to give new entrants in the market the chance to have a few IPv4 addresses to run their NAT64 gear on. (But I told you that already).
And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that a correct interpretation of what you have said?
Yes.
So basically, the idea that I had of having these kinds of cooks "audited" is utterly futile and pointless, yes?
The audit will ensure that the contact data the NCC has is right (so we know who they are), that the company registration data is right (so we can sue them, if needed), but it does not ensure that the holder will use their IP addresses in a way that doesn't offend anyone, right. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Before responding, I'd just like to say that yesterday, I believed that I had adjusted my procmail rules so that I would never again get any messages from or relating to this list or this WG. As far as I am concerned, any further time of mine spent interacting with this WG is an utter waste of my precious remaining minutes on this earth. (I continue to be subscribed to this list only because I automagically, using procmail, archive many many mailing list for reasons that I shall not go into, but which have nothing at all to do with content. And before anybody asks, no, I am _not_ an NSA contractor or employee.) In message <20130628074459.GP2706@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
I suppose that the word "exhaustion" has a different meaning depending upon one's own individual situation. Certainly, if you are one of the luck few who had the foresight to start hording and to squirrel away a whole lot of IPv4 space some time ago, then right now I am sure that you are sitting pretty, and saying to yourself "Shortage? What shortage?"
Other people (and companis) may perhaps not have had the same level of foresight.
No, you're misunderstanding me. Whatever we do, 4 billion IPv4 addresses will not be sufficient to number Internet access for 6+ billion humans on earth. So it's important to get over the fact that IPv4 is *gone* and move ahead to the only alternative we have: IPv6.
I see no reason to continue any pretense of courtesy in the presence of such unmitigated fertilizer. The above is the standard pro forma argument that is always trotted out by all those who either own stock in equipment makers that are selling IPv6 gear or who otherwise have some financial interest in persuading everybody on earth to use something that it has already been proven that virtually nobody actually wants or is actively using. To say that 4 billion IPv4 addresses cannot sustain 6+ billion residents of planet earth is essentially no different from saying that because we have 6+ billion people we need 6+ billion toilets. In short, the statement is ludicrous on the face of it. Such statements are deserving of nothing other then derision and ridicule. They ignore both readily available technology and also the obscene amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse that are almost everywhere evident in what can only jokingly be called the current allocation "master plan" of the IPv4 address space. Personally, I think that anyone who even remotely identifies himself or herself with the profession of engineering and who simultaneously denies humanity's ability... or even willingness... to stretch something less that 6 billion toliets to cover 6+ billion people ought to (a) hang their heads in shame and also (b) be immediately laughed out of the business. But we live in an odd world these days, and unfortunately neither (a) nor (b) is currently happening. In the meantime, until it does, and for the forseeable future, I personally shall continue to look forward to the day... soon I hope, for all our sakes... when the species homo sapiens finally grows up and starts understanding how to properly care for, be good stewards of, and live within the limits of the resources that we have, including a finite atmosphere into which we _cannot_ actually just simply pump unlimited amounts of our effluent, a finite land mass, a finite amount of airable land, a finite amount of fresh clean water, and a finite IP address space. All these resources, if managed properly, sensibly, and without profligate waste and short-term driven exploitation, could be easily rendered infinitely renewable, could be handed down, by us, largely if not entirely intact, not merely to the next generation, but also to their descendants, forever. But homo sapiens clearly has not reached that understanding yet. He is still out walking across that frozen land bridge from Asia into the Americans, and all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego, perpetually in search of new space to invade, conquer, exploit, lay waste to, and then, as always move on. This worked great for dozens of millennia. Alas it will not work forever. Regards, rfg
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
am concerned, any further time of mine spent interacting with this
Hm, you would probably have more time, when bringing your mails down to facts instead of writing lines and lines of lyrics ... Nearly all IPv4 space has been given to people and companies. There is nearly nothing left you could give away ...
All these resources, if managed properly, sensibly, and without profligate waste and short-term driven exploitation, could be easily rendered
I agree, that there are many many IPv4 addresses currentyl wasted, unused like all these big class-A blocks they gave to the NSA, HP, Apple aso, wich can never proof a need of that many IPs for servers and equipment. And there are stupid big block reservations for protocols nobody actually uses, like internal networks, multicast aso. They could be reduced to a single Class-B for example ... There are also lots of blocks given to people and companies that do illegal or unwanted things, at least in some countries ... And there are lots of big blocks wasted with companies (I would say typically access providers), that are really to stupid to configure there equipment right and instead ordered more and more IPs (an example: the German DTAG could only give access to 80 Million people maximum, guess how many IPs they have for access purpose ?) All those IPs could be used much better and probably last a very long time ... But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ? You have have to be "Robin Hood" to achieve that ... Good luck, Frank
infinitely renewable, could be handed down, by us, largely if not entirely intact, not merely to the next generation, but also to their descendants, forever.
But homo sapiens clearly has not reached that understanding yet. He is still out walking across that frozen land bridge from Asia into the Americans, and all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego, perpetually in search of new space to invade, conquer, exploit, lay waste to, and then, as always move on. This worked great for dozens of millennia. Alas it will not work forever.
Regards, rfg
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
Neither dtag nor the other entities that you mentioned, are using the resources that they have been allocated, and could possibly do with less of, are using their IP space for large scale network abuse so i do wish you wouldn't make such comparisons --srs (htc one x) On 29-Jun-2013 2:02 PM, "Frank Gadegast" <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
am concerned, any further time of mine spent interacting with this
Hm, you would probably have more time, when bringing your mails down to facts instead of writing lines and lines of lyrics ...
Nearly all IPv4 space has been given to people and companies. There is nearly nothing left you could give away ...
All these resources, if managed properly, sensibly, and without profligate
waste and short-term driven exploitation, could be easily rendered
I agree, that there are many many IPv4 addresses currentyl wasted, unused like all these big class-A blocks they gave to the NSA, HP, Apple aso, wich can never proof a need of that many IPs for servers and equipment.
And there are stupid big block reservations for protocols nobody actually uses, like internal networks, multicast aso. They could be reduced to a single Class-B for example ...
There are also lots of blocks given to people and companies that do illegal or unwanted things, at least in some countries ...
And there are lots of big blocks wasted with companies (I would say typically access providers), that are really to stupid to configure there equipment right and instead ordered more and more IPs (an example: the German DTAG could only give access to 80 Million people maximum, guess how many IPs they have for access purpose ?)
All those IPs could be used much better and probably last a very long time ...
But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ?
You have have to be "Robin Hood" to achieve that ...
Good luck, Frank
infinitely renewable, could be handed down, by us, largely if not entirely
intact, not merely to the next generation, but also to their descendants, forever.
But homo sapiens clearly has not reached that understanding yet. He is still out walking across that frozen land bridge from Asia into the Americans, and all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego, perpetually in search of new space to invade, conquer, exploit, lay waste to, and then, as always move on. This worked great for dozens of millennia. Alas it will not work forever.
Regards, rfg
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ==============================**==============================**==========
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Neither dtag nor the other entities that you mentioned, are using the resources that they have been allocated, and could possibly do with less of, are using their IP space for large scale network abuse so i do wish you wouldn't make such comparisons
Who did a comparison here ? I didnt. Those are different facts (abusers, wasters, stupid protocols and far too big legacy chunks along with stupid ERX blocks spreaded and wasted all over the place) all ending up in wasted address space. The question is, if the community likes to collects these netblocks back to give it away to people that need some, in much smaller chunks. Or if we are too lazy (simply because it would be quite difficult) and then push IPv6 forward (what will exhaust one day too, simply because we waste them already). In this case Ronald is quite right ... I personally wondered why IPv6 was started before the IPv4 space was cleaned up, somehow typical I would say ... Kind regards, Frank
--srs (htc one x)
On 29-Jun-2013 2:02 PM, "Frank Gadegast" <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de <mailto:ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de>> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
am concerned, any further time of mine spent interacting with this
Hm, you would probably have more time, when bringing your mails down to facts instead of writing lines and lines of lyrics ...
Nearly all IPv4 space has been given to people and companies. There is nearly nothing left you could give away ...
All these resources, if managed properly, sensibly, and without profligate waste and short-term driven exploitation, could be easily rendered
I agree, that there are many many IPv4 addresses currentyl wasted, unused like all these big class-A blocks they gave to the NSA, HP, Apple aso, wich can never proof a need of that many IPs for servers and equipment.
And there are stupid big block reservations for protocols nobody actually uses, like internal networks, multicast aso. They could be reduced to a single Class-B for example ...
There are also lots of blocks given to people and companies that do illegal or unwanted things, at least in some countries ...
And there are lots of big blocks wasted with companies (I would say typically access providers), that are really to stupid to configure there equipment right and instead ordered more and more IPs (an example: the German DTAG could only give access to 80 Million people maximum, guess how many IPs they have for access purpose ?)
All those IPs could be used much better and probably last a very long time ...
But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ?
You have have to be "Robin Hood" to achieve that ...
Good luck, Frank
infinitely renewable, could be handed down, by us, largely if not entirely intact, not merely to the next generation, but also to their descendants, forever.
But homo sapiens clearly has not reached that understanding yet. He is still out walking across that frozen land bridge from Asia into the Americans, and all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego, perpetually in search of new space to invade, conquer, exploit, lay waste to, and then, as always move on. This worked great for dozens of millennia. Alas it will not work forever.
Regards, rfg
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de <mailto:frank@powerweb.de> Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ==============================__==============================__==========
-- Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
So I guess this document http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-592 is BS IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region Unless we delete 10.0 (audit) 11.0 (closing LIR that don't comply with policies) 9.0 (record keeping) in 8.0 I suggest to remove the additionnal End User Agreement that should be written in the sub user contract ... In fact everything. ripe-592 could be : do whatever you want, we don't care, but we'll take the money of the LIR + formations, enforce heavy bureaucratic stuff and don't care about people. In fact RIPE does not do what it tells its mission is... it inconsistency, plain disrespect for the people who are complying to the policies. Tell me honestly: is it plain loss of interest in the mission of having a fair use of internet where it is not the stronger/bolder that makes the rules, lies, or just incompetency? 2013/6/29 Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de>
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
Neither dtag nor the other entities that you mentioned, are using the resources that they have been allocated, and could possibly do with less of, are using their IP space for large scale network abuse so i do wish you wouldn't make such comparisons
Who did a comparison here ? I didnt.
Those are different facts (abusers, wasters, stupid protocols and far too big legacy chunks along with stupid ERX blocks spreaded and wasted all over the place) all ending up in wasted address space.
The question is, if the community likes to collects these netblocks back to give it away to people that need some, in much smaller chunks.
Or if we are too lazy (simply because it would be quite difficult) and then push IPv6 forward (what will exhaust one day too, simply because we waste them already).
In this case Ronald is quite right ...
I personally wondered why IPv6 was started before the IPv4 space was cleaned up, somehow typical I would say ...
Kind regards, Frank
--srs (htc one x)
On 29-Jun-2013 2:02 PM, "Frank Gadegast" <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de <mailto:ripe-anti-spam-wg@**powerweb.de <ripe-anti-spam-wg@powerweb.de>>> wrote:
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
am concerned, any further time of mine spent interacting with this
Hm, you would probably have more time, when bringing your mails down to facts instead of writing lines and lines of lyrics ...
Nearly all IPv4 space has been given to people and companies. There is nearly nothing left you could give away ...
All these resources, if managed properly, sensibly, and without profligate waste and short-term driven exploitation, could be easily rendered
I agree, that there are many many IPv4 addresses currentyl wasted, unused like all these big class-A blocks they gave to the NSA, HP, Apple aso, wich can never proof a need of that many IPs for servers and equipment.
And there are stupid big block reservations for protocols nobody actually uses, like internal networks, multicast aso. They could be reduced to a single Class-B for example ...
There are also lots of blocks given to people and companies that do illegal or unwanted things, at least in some countries ...
And there are lots of big blocks wasted with companies (I would say typically access providers), that are really to stupid to configure there equipment right and instead ordered more and more IPs (an example: the German DTAG could only give access to 80 Million people maximum, guess how many IPs they have for access purpose ?)
All those IPs could be used much better and probably last a very long time ...
But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ?
You have have to be "Robin Hood" to achieve that ...
Good luck, Frank
infinitely renewable, could be handed down, by us, largely if not entirely intact, not merely to the next generation, but also to their descendants, forever.
But homo sapiens clearly has not reached that understanding yet. He is still out walking across that frozen land bridge from Asia into the Americans, and all the way down to Tierra Del Fuego, perpetually in search of new space to invade, conquer, exploit, lay waste to, and then, as always move on. This worked great for dozens of millennia. Alas it will not work forever.
Regards, rfg
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de <mailto:frank@powerweb.de>
Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ==============================**__============================** ==__==========
--
Mit freundlichen Gruessen, -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ==============================**==============================**==========
Hi, On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:45:34AM +0200, Frank Gadegast wrote:
I personally wondered why IPv6 was started before the IPv4 space was cleaned up, somehow typical I would say ...
This is *very* easy - because some of us had the foresight of "not waiting until the very last moment". This is why we have halfway sane IPv6 allocation policies today, and people who want to deploy IPv6 have been able to do so (and have done so). Moving to IPv6 some 10 years ago would have been MUCH less work, because the amount of IPv4-only devices that have been rolled out in these 10 years is enormous (10 years ago, there was no UMTS, and no IPv4-only UMTS handsets that now provice a large legacy to care for). Running headfirst into the wall, and *then* thinking of a backup plan is not a very good approach. 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 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
In message <51CE9C11.50107@powerweb.de>, you wrote:
But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ?
When the space is being demonstratably used for snowshoe spamming and/or for "blackhat SEO" purposes (which are also fundamentally anti-social), yes, I do.
Ronald F. Guilmette wrote:
In message<51CE9C11.50107@powerweb.de>, you wrote:
But: those netblocks have been given to the resource holders under the regulations of that time. Do you really want to change the regulations now, to take resources "back" ?
When the space is being demonstratably used for snowshoe spamming and/or for "blackhat SEO" purposes (which are also fundamentally anti-social), yes, I do.
Good. Now we know, that LIRs should only give resources away, when the usage is clearly defined and does not change, I like to ask: - is an LIR forced by any RFC or RIPE regulation to control the usage later on ? RIPE seems to only take care, that the address of an LIR is ok, its still the same company, the company exists and the resources are put into the RIPE db aso: - but does the RIPE NCC also checks the usage of all resources and if the LIR controls the usage of those resources during an audit process ? how can a LIR proove to the RIPE NCC that the initial purpose is still the same ? - can RIPE NCC force an LIR legally to withdraw a specific network not used for its initial purpose ? - and can RIPE NCC withdraw the complete allocation of this LIR if he does not ? Could someone please name the excact phrase of an RFC or other RIPE NCC document or contract. If there is none, should that not be our next proposal ? Kind regards, Frank -- PHADE Software - PowerWeb http://www.powerweb.de Inh. Dipl.-Inform. Frank Gadegast mailto:frank@powerweb.de Schinkelstrasse 17 fon: +49 33200 52920 14558 Nuthetal OT Rehbruecke, Germany fax: +49 33200 52921 ======================================================================
participants (10)
-
'Marco d'Itri' -
Erik Bais -
Erik Bais -
Frank Gadegast -
Gert Doering -
julien tayon -
md＠Linux.IT
-
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Saso G. -
Suresh Ramasubramanian