[address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published

Hi Ciprian:

Since it become personal attack again, I feel the need to responds. But at
least this time it was not random gmail address used by someone to hide
their identity. So I will responds:

Here is your example and my company happened to be the receivee to all of
three allocation you have mentioned.

*"*





















*Let me give you an example: - 37.222.0.0/15 <http://37.222.0.0/15> -
allocated on 05.04.2012 - 5.132.0.0/16 <http://5.132.0.0/16> - allocated on
02.07.2012 - 5.224.0.0/15 <http://5.224.0.0/15> - allocated on
06.09.2012All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands.
During thattime I was working for a very large ISP that had a very
important IPv6deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get
a /14,/17and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval
forsuch a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get
it).Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and
isnow a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out
formillions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders
ofthe last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE
NCCnoticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did
anythingabout it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as
Isaid, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'llhave
to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten inNetherlands."*

My company as far as I can see, has growth substantially in past 3 years,
while I receive the allocation, there is no one I know from the hostmaster
team and in fact, I had huge debate with one of the hostmasters back then,
elvis, strong argument, days and nights argument, I can tell you, it was
not easy to get these allocations. And all the allocation I received was
according to the policy.

Please do not use your way of business to judge what other people might
have done in their business, there are legit ways to make money other then
bribe people.

You are accusing me "abuse", please provide evident since you are doing it
in a public space.

And to best of my knowledge,  RIPE NCC board has never been involved in any
of the registration process, will never do so as well, i am very much
double that you have been told you need to have board approval for your
allocation request(if one of current board member are reading this, please
help to clarify).

More over, receiving large IP space does not equal to large ISP, I think
this is just common knowledge. There are tons of IP intensive service out
there in which has nothing to do with individual customers(CDN for example).

Hope this clarify things and the subject should not be bought up at
personal level again.

Chair, do you agree with me? This is policy mailing list about policy and
not about individuals or specific companies' activity. Please clarify this
to the community because this is not the first time personally attack
happening here(and not just to me and my company).

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:04 AM, <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
>       (Carsten Schiefner)
>    2. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Ciprian Nica)
>    3. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and    Impact  Analysis        Published
>       (LIR (BIT I 5))
>    4. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)
>       (Mikael Abrahamsson)
>    5. Re: 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published
>       (Alignment of Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations) (Tom Smyth)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:22:20 +0200
> From: Carsten Schiefner <ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de>
> To: Vladimir Andreev <vladimir at quick-soft.net>
> Cc: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
>         Analysis Published
> Message-ID: <5577D79C.7020705 at schiefner.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Dear Vladimir,
>
> On 10.06.2015 08:09, Vladimir Andreev wrote:
> > You're angry because you know that it's completely fair idea.
>
> first of all, I am not angry.
>
> I just believe that we have more important stuff to deal with than these
> see-through non-arguments.
>
> Secondly: the tagging of your "idea" as fair appears as another attempt
> to blurr this discussion.
>
> Semantically, there indeed *IS* a difference between lending support to
> a proposal and objecting to it.
>
> In the former, you buy into the rationale already put forward by the
> proposer - no need to repeat them. Conditions apply as Gert has come up
> with.
>
> In the latter, you object to the rationale - and you want to let hear
> reasons for it.
>
> It is really that simple.
>
> > P.S. The policy of "gagging the mouths" is rather stupid one. Storch
> > Matei yesterday wrote a lot about such "practice". I totally support
> > his statements.
>
> I do not attempt to gag anybody. I just beg your mercy to spare us the
> fuzz.
>
> Thanks and best,
>
>         -C.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 10:18:44 +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
> Message-ID: <5577E4D4.5000008 at ip-broker.uk>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi,
>
> > I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the
> issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution.
> That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger
> policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at
> all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person
> which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from
> ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.
>
> I wouldn't want to bring this subject but it seems that most of the
> people are looking at the problems witht the eyes shut.
>
> Let me give you an example:
>
>  - 37.222.0.0/15 - allocated on 05.04.2012
>  - 5.132.0.0/16 - allocated on 02.07.2012
>  - 5.224.0.0/15 - allocated on 06.09.2012
>
> All theese were given to a natural person from Netherlands. During that
> time I was working for a very large ISP that had a very important IPv6
> deployment in place. I remember it was very difficult to get a /14,/17
> and I was told it's necessary to get the RIPE NCC's board approval for
> such a large allocation (I actually asked for a /13 but wouldn't get it).
>
> Where are that IPs now ? Did this natural person expand that fast and is
> now a large ISP in Netherlands ? Most of them are already cashed out for
> millions. This single example did more damage than all the "hoarders of
> the last /8". Was this possible without some inside help ? Has RIPE NCC
> noticed this kind of abuse (as it's not the only one) and did anything
> about it ? Why are we focusing on the small fish ? Maybe it's, as I
> said, just smoke meant to prevent us from seeing the real fire. I'll
> have to amend the Hamlet quote and say that something is rotten in
> Netherlands.
>
> > The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to
> set up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world.
> There is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and
> aquisition. If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating
> gateways between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of
> stronger version they'd already know that this addresses are not
> transferable. And they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see
> a reason why not requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The
> default shall be all resources have to be returned. I am sure thar
> requiring the need to argue for several months to get resources transfered
> will make lot's of transfers obsolete, because that way the transfer
> becomes uninteresting for most cases. Only LIR with real world used and
> needed resources will take that discussion. And all traders will silently
> disappear.
>
> If RIPE NCC would present to the community the problems they see, maybe
> we could come up with some policies to prevent them. But we should not
> waste the energy on small, irrelevant problems.
>
> > So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this
> proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more
> restrictive policy"
>
> I think it is an important argument. Doing something that has no
> positive effect is just smoke that makes some of us sleep better while
> the problems might become worse.
>
> Ciprian
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 07:20:24 +0000
> From: "LIR (BIT I 5)" <LIR at bva.bund.de>
> To: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and     Impact
>         Analysis        Published
> Message-ID:
>         <C9593F67FE4B1342BBC009DF73251B2C8D6BFA1F at S01KR974.intern.dir>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi at all,
> +1 for Jens
> +1 for the proposal 2015-01
> Kind regards,
> Carsten Br?ckner
> LIR de.government
>
> -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] Im
> Auftrag von Opteamax GmbH
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 10. Juni 2015 06:38
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-01 Draft Document and Impact
> Analysis Published
>
> Hi Borhan,
> Hi List,
>
> hanging around on this list and discussing policy issues for quiet a while
> I am kind of surprised seeing how this discussion is going now...
>
> Having this big amount of almost identically sounding "-1 I oppose because
> I don't like" mails without any substance besides "subjective feelings"
> gives me the impression that the policy definition process is being abused
> exactly the same way as the /8 policy is being abused: some few are signing
> into the mailing list with a lot of addresses just to prevent a policy
> which has the intention to prevent exactly those people's way of abusing
> the community!
>
> To be honest, this behaviour makes the need for this kind of policy-change
> only appear more important.
>
> I agree with the ones writing that the policy is not fully solving the
> issue. But I think we should adopt this policy ASAP as short-term solution.
> That way we win a period of additional 12 months to define a stronger
> policy which defines that prefixes from last /8 may not be transfered at
> all... and maybe even a (not address) policy defining that natural person
> which where discovered to willingly abuse the community will be banned from
> ripe membership for the rest of their lifes.
>
> The intention of those /22 from last /8 was giving the opportunity to set
> up transformers connecting ancient V4 world to shining new V6 world. There
> is no need of taking over those addresses, even for mergers and aquisition.
> If some LIR are using those V4 for other purpose then creating gateways
> between old an new world ... fair enough, but with that kind of stronger
> version they'd already know that this addresses are not transferable. And
> they'd simply have to deal with it. Actually I don't see a reason why not
> requiring very strong reasoning for each transfer. The default shall be all
> resources have to be returned. I am sure thar requiring the need to argue
> for several months to get resources transfered will make lot's of transfers
> obsolete, because that way the transfer becomes uninteresting for most
> cases. Only LIR with real world used and needed resources will take that
> discussion. And all traders will silently disappear.
>
> So my conclusion on all those "-1 it doesn't solve"-mails: Adopt this
> proposal now to prevent further abuse during definition of a much more
> restrictive policy"
>
> Sorry for being so pragmatic, but all those -1 mails show me that the
> community actually want something much more restrictive!
>
> BR Jens
>
>
> Am 9. Juni 2015 22:01:29 MESZ, schrieb Borhan Habibi <borhan.h at gmail.com>:
> >I oppose this proposal as it cannot solve thrpe problem
> >
> >-1 to this proposal
> >
> >
>
> Opteamax GmbH - RIPE-Team
> 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: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 09:50:04 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se>
> To: Ciprian Nica <office at ip-broker.uk>
> Cc: 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: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506100936040.9487 at uplift.swm.pp.se>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
>
> On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:
>
> > When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to
> > sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were
> > rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked
> > about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in
> > use and they can't give up on it.
>
> Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If
> it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address
> space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do
> so. If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this
> wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the
> goodness of their heart to give addresses away.
>
> > Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking
> > advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence
> > and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community,
> > that would be a real benefit.
>
> Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this space,
> and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X
> amount of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.
>
> Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more
> than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up
> takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing
> server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M EUR
> for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people do
> do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a
> resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little
> money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on this
> resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a
> business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them they
> need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away.
> So it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.
>
> Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for
> new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed
> the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease
> the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a
> little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the
> market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to
> help.
>
> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 08:58:32 +0100
> From: Tom Smyth <tom.smyth at wirelessconnect.eu>
> To: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> Cc: 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:
>         <CAJ3iMJQ=1eL-0KoCXko1pfTUzs_jnOGCXU=
> VYAKDsvfFfqDe-g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
> We @ as198988 support the proposal ...
> Im going to assume for the sake of arguement  that in these discussions
> that all people contributing are either Mere mortal lir tech / admin
> contacts  like me  or well established experts contributing to policy for
> years or academics ... that should tackle the hire a croud... problem..
>
> I think it is important that a pool of /22s is maintained for as long as
> possible to allow genuine internet startups deploy ipv6 infrastructure with
> an ability to create backward compatible translation systems
>
> +1 mofos
>  On 9 Jun 2015 16:58, "Gert Doering" <gert at space.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 9 Jun 2015, Ciprian Nica wrote:
> >
> >  When I've heared that UK's Department for Work and Pensions started to
> >> sell the IPs a couple weeks I couldn't believe it, although there were
> >> rumors about it some months ago. I remember that in 2012 they were asked
> >> about the /8 they keep for the internal network and they said it's in
> >> use and they can't give up on it.
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps they could when they saw how much money they could get for it. If
> > it cost 5M GBP (I just made that figure up) to move away from the address
> > space and they can get more money selling it, then it makes sense to do
> so.
> > If they were told to just hand it back without compensation, then this
> > wouldn't happen, because they're not going to pay 5M GBP out of the
> > goodness of their heart to give addresses away.
> >
> >  Imagine if they would have returned the IPs to RIPE instead of taking
> >> advantage and making a huge profit. If Daimler, UK's ministry of defence
> >> and other holders of large blocks would give them back to the community,
> >> that would be a real benefit.
> >>
> >
> > Most likely most of these were actually using at least part of this
> space,
> > and the only reason they handed it back was because they could pay X
> amount
> > of money for doing the work, and get X+Y money back from selling.
> >
> > Let's say an organization sits on a legacy /8. They might not use more
> > than 30% of this actually, but it's really fragmented, so cleaning it up
> > takes quite a lot of work. It's a lot of night time maintenance, changing
> > server addresses, handling resulting problems etc. If they can get 15M
> EUR
> > for this space over time, they can use some of that money to pay people
> do
> > do the work needed to free it up. Yes, they're making a profit out of a
> > resource that was handed to them back in the days for none or very little
> > money, but they followed the rules back then. Now, they're sitting on
> this
> > resource and is worth money if they can free it up. This fact creates a
> > business case to do work and free it up and sell it. If you told them
> they
> > need to hand it back without compensation, that business case goes away.
> So
> > it's no option to try to squeeze blood from that stone for free.
> >
> > Now, with the last-/8 policy, we're trying to subsidize and simplify for
> > new entrants into the market and help them establish business. We changed
> > the rules, because the resource was running out, but we're trying to ease
> > the pain for the new/small guy. What we're now trying to do is make it a
> > little less appealing to take this subsidized thing and sell it on the
> > market, while not making it harder for the actual people we're trying to
> > help.
> >
> > --
> > Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/74fa72e7/attachment.html
> >
>
> End of address-policy-wg Digest, Vol 46, Issue 25
> *************************************************
>



-- 
--
Kind regards.
Lu

This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above.
It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or
otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use
of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the
intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and
e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this
message and including the text of the transmission received.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150610/0e7bede7/attachment.html>