[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20

Ciprian:

I don't believe UK tax payers will be ok with their government giving up
100m Euro assets, that being said, market is the market, just like the land
in California 200 years ago are practically free while today might cost 10m
to get a small apartment in the bay area, it is the new reality here and
everybody have to deal with it.

And for the /22, I fully support the policy and I believe such abuse should
not happen. and such abuse practically turns the last /8 policy useless. If
we should allow such abuse then why shouldn't we just completely deplete
the IPv4 instead of reserving the last /8.

One thing do worries me though, by doing a simple math:
(2000+1600+1600)/1000=5.2Euro/IP in cost, if future IP price reaches 10
Euro or up, we might still not able to stop such abuse, unless we make the
last /22 totally untransferable.

Just my two cents.

With regards.

Lu

On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 10:16 PM, <address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net> wrote:

> Send address-policy-wg mailing list submissions to
>         address-policy-wg at ripe.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://www.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         address-policy-wg-request at ripe.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         address-policy-wg-owner at ripe.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of address-policy-wg digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Garry Glendown)
>    2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Ciprian Nica)
>    3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Opteamax GmbH)
>    4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Tore Anderson)
>    5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Ciprian Nica)
>    6. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Ciprian Nica)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:49:57 +0200
> From: Garry Glendown <garry at nethinks.com>
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <55774365.9050801 at nethinks.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Guten Tag,
> > 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
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 22:53:17 +0300
> From: Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk>
> To: Garry Glendown <garry at nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <5577442D.7060903 at ip-broker.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 21:57:37 +0200
> From: Opteamax GmbH <ripe at opteamax.de>
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <55774531.9050009 at opteamax.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
> 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
>
> --
> Jens Ott
>
> Opteamax GmbH
>
> Simrockstr. 4b
> 53619 Rheinbreitbach
>
> Tel.:  +49 2224 969500
> Fax:   +49 2224 97691059
> Email: jo at opteamax.de
>
> HRB: 23144, Amtsgericht Montabaur
> Umsatzsteuer-ID.: DE264133989
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2015 21:59:57 +0200
> From: Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no>
> To: Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk>
> Cc: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <20150609215957.407aba88 at envy.fud.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 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-address-space.xhtml
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:00:55 +0300
> From: Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk>
> To: Garry Glendown <garry at nethinks.com>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <557745F7.8060102 at ip-broker.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> There can be startups that get sold before 2 years and they would get
> affected or companies that go broke and try to get back part of their
> investment, but, as you saw, the guys that do circumvent RIPE policy
> will still be able to do it, so it won't affect them.
>
> Ciprian
>
> On 6/9/2015 10:49 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
> > Guten Tag,
> >> 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
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 23:16:27 +0300
> From: Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk>
> To: Opteamax GmbH <ripe at opteamax.de>, address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4
>         Allocations)
> Message-ID: <5577499B.6020801 at ip-broker.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 20
> *************************************************
>



--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150609/be9f8922/attachment.html>