<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style></style></head><body lang=NL link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>For those that might have missed the discussion on this mailing list about the policy proposal or didn’t attend RIPE68, I have done a presentation in Warshaw at RIPE68 about the policy proposal. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>These options have been discussed there and you can review the discussion on the archive here : <a href="https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/167/">https://ripe68.ripe.net/archives/video/167/</a> <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'>Erik Bais<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>Van:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'> address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] <b>Namens </b>LeaderTelecom Ltd.<br><b>Verzonden:</b> maandag 4 augustus 2014 12:41<br><b>Aan:</b> noable@gmail.com<br><b>CC:</b> address-policy-wg@ripe.net<br><b>Onderwerp:</b> Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2014072901004581] 2014-02 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (Allow IPv4 PI transfer [...]<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Dear Andrei,<br><br>> The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.<br><br>Very good solution. All PI convert to PA. As a result memebership fee will be less in 2 times or more while we will have at least in 2 times more RIPE members.<br><br>--<br>Aleksei<br><br>04.08.2014 13:05 - Andrei Kushnireuski написал(а): <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Everybody knows a lot of ISPs use PI at result of non-ideal IPv4 assignment policy from the RIPE NCC side. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>The single solution is to make PI cost = PA cost and allow ISP to move PI > PA without additional problems.<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>--<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Andrei Kushnireuski<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>On 04 Aug 2014, at 10:54, LeaderTelecom Ltd. <<a href="mailto:info@leadertelecom.ru" target="_blank">info@leadertelecom.ru</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Dear Andrzej,<br><br>> PI and PA are for different purposes.<br>> PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.<br><br>Yes, this is great theory.<br><br>In fact people ask - why I have to pay for LIR? PI is cheaper for me. I will use IPs as I need. <br>I see a lot of requests for PI networks last month. They ready to pay for transfer one time and then pay very small money every year. <o:p></o:p></span></p><div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br>> Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)<br><br>I remember very long discussion about it ) We decided that each LIR is a member and we contribute same amount of money into RIPE. And it is logicaly.<br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>--<br>Aleksei<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br>04.08.2014 12:37 - Andrzej Dopierała написал(а): <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>PI and PA are for different purposes.<br>PA are for ISP's, who give ip's for customers.<br>I cooperate with two ip owners.<br>One - is ISP. Give ip, block of ip for customers (on lans, in collocations etc). It's LIR.<br><br>Second - is voip provider. Need stable links from differend upstreams, with BGP. Don't give ip for cusomers. IP's are used only for own infrastructure - SIP proxy, registrars, application services, www with SSL, VPNS's etc.<br><br>And need stable ip's, because changing ip's in customers is extremaly hardly (they have ipsecs, firewalls etc).<br>Here is used PI class.<br><br>I think puting both ip owners in one bag is misteake. First - use thousands of ip's. For second - /24 is enought forever.<br><br>Paying by both common "lir fee" would be unfair.<br><br>If we want to be fair - why not pay for every used ip? why shouldn't pay 100E every /24 block?<br><br>Then - PI owner with /24 block would pay 100E. And ISP with /18 would pay 64 *100E = 6400E ? :)<br><br>W dniu 04.08.2014 10:14, LeaderTelecom Ltd. pisze:<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'>Hello all,<br><br>I don't support this proposal.<br><br>This is Pandora's box. <br><br>To get 1024 IPs for now company can register LIR and pay to RIPE 2000 eur + 1600 eur annually. If same company will transfer PI, then they will pay to RIPE only 50 eur.<br><br>LIR's will be in much worse situation than owners of PI-networks.<br><br>We can apply proposal if we will increase payment for PI-networks after transfer. For example, 1000 eur annually for each PI resource. In this situation new LIRs and owners of PI-network will pay into RIPE NCC similar payments.<br><br>--<br>Aleksei Ivanov<br>LeaderTelecom<br> <o:p></o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br>On 28 Jul 2014, at 20:18, Gert Doering <a href="mailto:gert@space.net" target="_blank"><gert@space.net></a> wrote:<br><br>> Dear AP WG,<br>><br>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 11:58:51AM +0200, Marco Schmidt wrote:<br>>> The draft document for the proposal described in 2014-02,<br>>> "Allow IPv4 PI transfer" has been published. The impact analysis<br>>> that was conducted for this proposal has also been published.<br>>><br>>><br>>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:<br>>><br>>> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02</a><br>>><br>>> and the draft document at:<br>>><br>>> <a href="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft" target="_blank" title="https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft">https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-02/draft</a><br>><br>><br>> We could use a bit more input on this proposal. We have one clear<br>> statement of support, and one mail that puts up some questions while not<br>> taking a clear pro/con position - and that is not enough to declare<br>> anything except "needs more time" at the end of review phase.<br>><br>> So, tell me your thoughts, please.<br>><br>> thanks,<br>><br>> Gert Doering,<br>> APWG chair<br>><br>><br>> Gert Doering<br>> -- NetMaster<br>> --<br>> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?<br>><br>> SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard<br>> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann<br>> D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)<br>> Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279<br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'> <o:p></o:p></span></p><pre><o:p> </o:p></pre><pre>-- <o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Regards,<o:p></o:p></pre><pre>Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała<o:p></o:p></pre><pre><a href="http://andrzej.dopierala.name/" target="_blank">http://andrzej.dopierala.name/</a><o:p></o:p></pre></div><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif"'><br> <o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>