Hi, everybody. As we see some people decided to ignore others who want to tell their opposition opinion and welcome those, who agree. I thought the RIPE NCC is community, expressing all people position. But I was wrong.
Could you explain how do resellers abuse the system? Why don't you return unused allocations, which are more than all /8? You may ask to delete me from this mail list, but it will confirm my words. 27.04.2015, 11:31, "Elvis Daniel Velea" <[email protected]>: > Hello everyone, > > in a previous message I did say that I expected to see a few flying tomatoes > towards me, just because I am a broker of IP addresses when coming up with > this proposal. > However, the low level of personal attacks I have seen on this mailing list > in the past few weeks have made me wonder how pathetic some people can > actually be... > > I would like to thank everyone that defended me on the mailing list, people > that do understand why I have sent in this policy proposal, people that know > me since I first joined this community more than 10 years ago. I would also > like to thank the chairs for stepping in to stop the pathetic attacks to my > person and to my business. > > Because some have questioned why I have sent in this request, I would like to > clarify some things: > > 1. IPv4 Brokers do not make their money from the /22s they broker. Actually, > we sometimes broker /22s (or smaller prefixes) even if we lose money just to > help a customer. We normally make a commission from the total transaction > price and brokering anything below a /21 means (most of the times) working > for free or for a loss. My business has nothing to do with this policy > proposal. Actually, if I would care for my business and for making a profit > from anything, I should oppose to such a proposal. This policy proposal has > been sent because for more than 7 years I have worked at the RIPE NCC and > they have injected me with some kind of serum that 'forces' me to do good > deeds for the community and for the well being of the Internet :-) > > 2. This policy proposal has been made after the lengthy discussion at the > RIPE Meeting in London and after noticing that the RIPE NCC keeps presenting > to the AP-WG that the 'last /8 policy' is being abused by a handful of > people. In a previous message I have already pointed to the recordings of > those discussions and Andrea's presentation. > > 3. This policy proposal does not attempt to fix the 'bug' that allows a > company/person to open multiple LIRs and receive multiple /22s (by way of > merger). This bug exists and is well know. It was even mentioned in the > rationale and the impact analysis of '2010-02 - the last /8 policy proposal' > [1]. > > 4. This policy proposal attempts to fix the problem raised by the RIPE NCC > where a company/person opens an LIR, receives a /22, transfers the /22 and > restarts the process, thus requesting the /22 with the only purpose to > 'transfer' it. The usage of the /22s should be restricted - as the 'last /8 > policy proposal aimed' - to the companies that need a bit of IP addresses to > operate in a 'still predominant' IPv4 world. I have seen cases where the /22 > from the last /8 has been received and transferred in the same day. This > 'business style' not only violates the RIPE Policies and the spirit of the > 'last /8 policy proposal' [1] but also shows that some only want to make > money by abusing the system. This must stop and that is why this policy > proposal was sent in. > > 5. I am upset to see that a co-national (mr Gabriel Voitis from Infinity > Telecom) has decided to publicly attack me on this mailing list and I have > decided to basically ignore all of his messages, I will not respond to his > pathetic attacks. I believe that a company founded in 2011 (with 0 employees > since) should just be ignored. Actually, I would like to ask the Chair of the > WG to request the removal of Mr Gabriel Voitis (or anyone else that lowers > himself at that level) from the mailing list if he continues with his > personal attacks towards me or towards my business. > > 6. I am also awaiting Marco's Impact Analysis to discuss this policy proposal > further. This will be my last message before the Impact Analysis is published. > > 7. Lastly, I welcome the discussion about the size of the allocation from the > last /8. I have actually asked Gert to give us a few minutes during the AP-WG > meeting in Amsterdam to discuss further. Radu, I will try to get in contact > with you as I like most of the ideas you have sent to this mailing list and > maybe we can come up with a nice presentation for RIPE70. > > Kind regards, > Elvis > > [1] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02 > > -- > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > Chief Executive Officer > > Email: [email protected] > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +31 (0) 61458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, > proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this > email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the > original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited. -- Kind regards, Petr Umelov
