<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Hi Sander, thank you for your reply <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Il 17/06/2016 00:59, Sander Steffann ha scritto: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Hi Riccardo, I'm sorry, but there is some FUD here that I need to address. Again: I don't care whether this policy gets consensus or not, but I do care about the quality of the arguments. That is what Gert and/or I have to base consensus on later.</pre> </blockquote> <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">A new entrant would see his investments vanified </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Address space is not an investment. The only reasons transfers were allowed in the first place (and this was not an easy decision back then) is to keep the database information accurate and to get some unused address space back in use.</pre> </blockquote> About investements: To set up my ISP I needed networking, infrastructure, IP transit, hosting services, IP addresses. I payed a signup fee and that was an investement to be an LIR and do better business as an ISP. I pay annualy a membership fees and this is part of the costs to run the business. if I look to my management server (a couple of server hotsed outside my network) I see that I pay 16 � per month for a /29 as part of the contract with my hosting provider... so actually yes IP space is a small part of the investements or costs in any case. About transferts: The same is today. Main reasons for a transfert are not renumbering and database consistence or unused IPs? Unused Ips is not my case I have so few. This proposal puts the new LIRs in a worse condition even it already is. We are not SICK, we are late entrants. I don't see any reason to create CLASS-E "unusable LIRs"� to keep them far from the IP market old LIRs created. Policies are making possibile every kind of transfert, inter RIR, PA, PI and so on and what? all of this for LIRs holding stockpiled space? The rules are there. If we change the rule change it for everyone and you'll find me really in favor of that. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">by a rule that make possibile transferts possbile only for old LIRs that acquired space before 09/2012 With this policy any new LIR would be out of the market before entering it. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">No, new LIRs get exactly the same "free" /22 as before. Only now they can not transfer/sell it, they can use it to run their network with. That is not pushing new LIRs out of the market. Unless your business is to sell off address space. In that case: that is what this proposal is trying to prevent, so the remaining address space is saved for organisations that run </pre> </blockquote> Are you really thinking that I came out with a proposal like 2015-05 to catch more IPs to sell them? I am not selling IPs 'cause i need them for assignements to customers but the first thing my they ask me when I propose consulting for IPv6 trasnition is "can I have the assigned space for me one day to keep on running the network" And what I aswer normally is "I surely can make you and IPv6 ALLOCATED-BY-LIR; for IPv4 let's see what happens maybe in the future you won't need, let's see" <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I didn't look deeply because I have no time for family reasons now but I am pretty sure that I can find easily in the list archive that IP Transfert policies were accepted even 'cause in case of network acquisition or M&A or many other cases renumbering customers is very difficoult, and having ability to transfert resources is the most easy way to keep consistence on database. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">We still have M&A for cases where businesses split up, merge, get sold etc. That is not affected by this policy proposal.</pre> </blockquote> The evidence of a disvantage of newcomers is still there. Black market will substitute normal transfert regulations and creative implementations of M&A will come to overcome the policy, transparency will go far from database and statistics and transfert evidence. You want all of this? <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">We were in Bucarest when celebrating Romania as the biggest transfert country were JUMP Management choosed to sell to its customers their allocation making them able to keep their business running! </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">An LIR assigns addresses to its customers. That is how the allocation/assignment model works. Selling PA addresses isn't part of that. And besides: you can only sell allocations to other LIRs, so those "customers" have to be LIRs anyway, so they can get their own /22.</pre> </blockquote> Again, selling PA is out there and there are many here on the list proud of it. We were in Bucarest celebrating this good manner of JUMP Management making space available to their end users signin up as new members. Second: avoid my customers to sign up and waste a /22 while needing only a /24 was exacly the purpose of 2015-05 I tried to explain everyone (with Radu who shared the same point about this) that many customers are signin up wasting space just for the needing of a /24. This customer is mine not yours. And what you want me to have no address space to serve him so we can let him create his own LIR? He is in a completely different kind of business nothing to deal with internet but the use!!!! In your opinion I have to force him to be like me, so the day after he can kid me like someone did on the list about the big space we hold? Don't say that lovering first allocation to /23 or /24 solve the problem beacuse you already know that this makes only my customers indipendent from me. This means put every newcomer LIRs after 14/09/2012 out of the market You want my customers equal to me out of the internet market, but you want to keep well signed that old LIRs are sigltly different. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">How can my new LIR company can compete in the market going to its customer stating "be aware that the assignement I giving you if I sell my company will be returned and you need to find a new LIR and renumber your network, </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Selling your company is M&A. That is unaffected by this policy proposal (important change in version 2), so no problem anymore. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">and sorry most important... I will never be able to sell you this block or part of it </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Where did this idea of selling customers parts of an LIRs PA space come from? The receiver of a (part of a) PA allocation has to be an LIR themselves and therefore can get their own /22 for free. Even if you want this business model then surely setting up an LIR for a customer and getting a /22 for them provides much more than selling off a part of your own /22 ever can.</pre> </blockquote> Just as an example? transition Sander, I repeated more than one time in this list that I have customers that ask for a /24 and IPv6 transition consulting services to run their new datacenter or multihome their networks. Perfect legitimate neeedings. Do I really need to explain any detail on the list about my business model? Want to join the smallest business? I don't think RIPE NCC need to take care of mine small business. I am really disappointed about you are treating us (new comers LIR after 14/09/2015). We don't force anything: we don't force LIRs or end user use IPv6 bla bla bla. Proposing introducing only a light control on IPv6 deployment I was adviced that every LIR is free to do what he need with space publically at RIPE72. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">End users will run far away from every new LIR choosing as default a LIR made before 09/2012. This creates barrier to ingress in the market. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Why? The LIR still has their PA allocation, can use it to provide service to customers etc. Nobody is taking a PA allocation away from the LIR.</pre> </blockquote> I am in doubt if RIPE NCC will go legal or illegal forcing companies to keep running or closing LIRs. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">The full control of IP market will be in the hand of LIR (and PI holders) made before 09/2012. Barriers to ingress in the market. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">I'm sorry, I don't care about "the IP market". Its only purpose is to get addresses to LIRs that need them. The last /22 allocation provides new LIRs with a free block to start running their network with, not to provide them with a free asset that they can then sell for profit. RIPE is about running networks. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">This is not leaving space to new entrants this is assuring control of IP market today. </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> IP market is there. I would have preffered an IPv4 transfert model without it but if it has been approved so we should care about it. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">New entrants become an LIR and get their /22. After that they can participate in the market of getting unused address space back in use all they want. It's not the RIPE community's job to provide them with new stuff they can sell. Everybody can become an LIR. Those thinking about selling parts of their /22 should think about what they are doing. If they want to help customers and provide a good service to them: help them set up an LIR if they need to (which they would also need to do to be able to receive a PA transfer). Get them their own /22 that no-one can take away from them. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Again: If a return policy has to be proposed this should address the whole IPv4 RIPE Region space to be fair and catch where IPs are stockpiled and not in use. I am pretty sure that everyone here agree that this is not possibile... </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">This is not a return policy proposal, this is a policy proposal that tries to stop people from using the scarce IPv4 resources that the RIPE NCC has left for their own profit instead of for the good of the community.</pre> </blockquote> This is higher the disadvantage to get rid of newcomers for the reason explained above. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">About 5.1. 4. plase don't don't don't state in the policy that /22 is for "transition purposes" In 2015-05 we tried to introduce ripeness stars and IPv6 deployment as a requirement for an additional /22 and at Address Policy Working Group in Copenhagen last 25/05 some of you experienced explained to me publically that we can't force old or new LIRs to deploy IPv6 and this is even the reason why the IPv6 requirement was removed from "last /8" allocation policy. Someone else said it's LIR responsability to choose how to use space... IPv6 will come....bla bla bla. You teached, I learned. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Apparently there are still lots of people that don't understand that the IPv4 barrel is as good as empty. I have to admit that I do sympathise with efforts to get rid of this FUD that IPv4 can still be "business as usual". Cheers, Sander </pre> </blockquote> Sorry my english is not so good and I didn't understood that last comment. <blockquote cite="mid:4ABC9CB5-5B45-4C58-97C9-C7EA7E5F908E@steffann.nl" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> sorry for the late reply but I was really busy these days regards Riccardo <div class="moz-signature">-- <pre>Ing. Riccardo Gori e-mail: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rgori@wirem.net">rgori@wirem.net</a> Mobile: +39 339 8925947 Mobile: +34 602 009 437 Profile: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943">https://it.linkedin.com/in/riccardo-gori-74201943</a> </pre> <img src="cid:part3.ACD3EA82.C79FF0AA@wirem.net" width="200"> <pre>WIREM Fiber Revolution Net-IT s.r.l. Via Cesare Montanari, 2 47521 Cesena (FC) Tel +39 0547 1955485 Fax +39 0547 1950285 -------------------------------------------------------------------- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons above and may contain confidential information. If you have received the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete the message. Should you have any questions, please contact us by re- plying to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:info@wirem.net">info@wirem.net</a> Thank you WIREM - Net-IT s.r.l.Via Cesare Montanari, 2 - 47521 Cesena (FC) -------------------------------------------------------------------- </pre> </div> </body> </html>