[tech] IPv4 /23 address space block, was Re: [ucc] Minutes of Meeting OGM on 18th October 2019
Nick Bannon
nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au
Wed Dec 4 23:30:53 AWST 2019
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:16:00AM +1030, Robert Ardill wrote:
> Hi Nick,
> I hope all is well?
Hi, thanks for the poke! Yes indeed, yourself?
I'm looking forward to a road trip in a month - Perth to
LCA2020, Queensland for: https://linux.conf.au/
> Just wondered if you had an update on the acquisition? I haven't received a
> call or email from your colleagues?
Yes - that was happening, but I guess it hasn't quite, yet.
If there's no reply, I'll check again.
On a technical front, we started a UCC aws.amazon.com account; and
they've added new locations you can advertise BYOIP from (though one
would have to watch the data transfer prices after the first gigabyte
per month). Hmmm - IPSec or Wireguard?
Still hoping (as a previous IAA/WAIA affiliate), to get in touch with
IAA and whoever last touched: http://bur.st/
Nick.
> --
> *Regards*
> * Rob Ardill*
>
> *This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> confidential. If you have received this message in error please notify the
> person sending this message by return email and delete the original
> message. I do not accept any liability for damage caused by any virus or
> other interference associated with this email message or any attachment.*
>
> On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 20:23, Robert Ardill <rob at ardill.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for the update Nick. Good to see it progressing. I'll await the
> > call from the UCC member.
> >
> > --
> > *Regards*
> > * Rob Ardill*
> >
> > *This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> > confidential. If you have received this message in error please notify the
> > person sending this message by return email and delete the original
> > message. I do not accept any liability for damage caused by any virus or
> > other interference associated with this email message or any attachment.*
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 at 01:03, Nick Bannon <nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> wrote:
> >> Hi, Rob! We've been:
> >> * firming up a technical plan - anyone on this list have comments?
> >> * ...and discussing the rest - a UCC Committee member should be
> >> getting in touch with you over the next week or so
> >>
> >> As a previous IAA/WAIA affiliate, we'd still like to get in touch with
> >> IAA and whoever last touched http://bur.st/ ; however, as a practical
> >> matter, we might get started with:
> >>
> >> https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSEC2/latest/UserGuide/ec2-byoip.html
> >>
> >> https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/10/announcing-the-general-availability-of-bring-your-own-ip-for-amazon-virtual-private-cloud/
> >>
> >> ...as somewhere to BGP-advertise from and at least get something pinging,
> >> even if it's not Australia-local (yet!).
> >>
> >> It says:
> >> > The following are supported:
> >> > ARIN - "Direct Allocation" and "Direct Assignment" network types
> >> > RIPE - "ALLOCATED PA", "LEGACY", and "ASSIGNED PI" allocation statuses
> >> > APNIC ? "ALLOCATED PORTABLE" and "ASSIGNED PORTABLE" allocation
> >> statuses
> >>
> >> Looks like that's already good with your whois!
> >> http://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext=203.27.114.0
> >> https://bgp.he.net/net/203.27.114.0/23
> >>
> >> Nick.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:53:26AM +0800, Thomas Hill Almeida wrote:
> >> > UCC OGM [...]
> >> > [NTU] motion that the Club pursues, facilitates and budgets for the
> >> purchase of
> >> > Internet address space for the advancement of the Club's objects; and
> >> any
> >> > necessary requirements for the above; and authorises the use of Club
> >> funds
> >> > towards this goal
> >> > * [NTU] moves
> >> > * [TBB] seconds
> >> > https://ucc.asn.au/infobase/minutes/2019/2019-10-18_ogm.ucc
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 06:31:41PM +0800, Nick Bannon wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 11:19:18PM +1030, Robert Ardill wrote:
> >> > > Hi Nick,
> >> >
> >> > Hi! Thanks for your patience - we've still got some things to do at our
> >> > end and we want to make sure we've got a plan to get this routed and
> >> > working for us. Talk to you soon; and feel free to contact me or us if
> >> > we go quiet!
> >> [...]
> >> > > As per previous message range is still for sale, but I've listed with
> >> a
> >> > > broker at the OCAU reserve, as there hasn't been any serious interest
> >> on
> >> > > OCAU. That said, I'd prefer to sell direct, as it will offer an
> >> opportunity
> >> > > to preserve the historical status and thus not lose the benefit of
> >> > > discounted APNIC fees, which is where the real benefit is.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks. Keeping the historical status seems like an appropriate plan
> >> for us.
> >> >
> >> > > *Details*
> >> > > Block is 203.27.114.0/23.
> >> > > Was on Internodes ASN until recently, but TPG migrated it with their
> >> > > takeover (203.27.114.0 <https://bgp.he.net/ip/203.27.114.0>)
> >> > > http://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext=203.27.114.0
> >> > >
> >> > > I'm the only owner and have used it privately mainly, but also for my
> >> > > personal business for the last 22 years. Space has A1 reputation.
> >> > >
> >> > > I'd imagine you're familiar with the options, but below is a cut and
> >> paste
> >> > > from other enquiries for people less familiar with the process.
> >> > >
> >> > > There's two options to transfer the ownership of the address space.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Become a APNIC Non-Member - ($200 /yr)
> >> > > Once formalities are sorted, I submit forms to APNIC to update the
> >> > > registration details. I'll then request my ISP cease advertising
> >> the prefix.
> >> > > Once the registration transfer is complete, you'll have complete
> >> > > administrative control over the space. You can then update the
> >> Registry and
> >> > > reverse delegations as needed via APNIC helpdesk.
> >> > >
> >> > > 1. Key Points:
> >> > > - You must pay the annual fee of $200 a year to APNIC. If you
> >> stop
> >> > > paying the fee, APNIC may remove the registration or drop the
> >> reverse DNS
> >> > > delegation.
> >> > > - Your ISP will check the Whois records before advertising the
> >> > > prefix for you, to ensure you are the rightful owner. This is
> >> the primary
> >> > > function of the registry.
> >> > > - In order to preserve the historical registration status, the
> >> > > networks original organisation ID must remain as is. It's
> >> cosmetic and only
> >> > > serves as an APNIC reference, but I need to state this as it's
> >> not well
> >> > > known (given the rarity of historical allocations).
> >> Importantly all other
> >> > > owner/contact details can be updated, including the actual
> >> organisation name.
> >> > > Below is a sample registration. (organisation: ORG-EYSP1-AP) is
> >> > > the bit that cannot be changed.
> >> > > You'll note my block predates rules of assignment to
> >> organisations
> >> > > only. This was way back when Geoff Huston was managing the
> >> space and before
> >> > > the red tape and bureaucracy took over, hence why this
> >> allocation doesn't
> >> > > have an org object.
> >> >
> >> > So... do we in fact re-use your Non-Member account? or is the next step
> >> is
> >> > that we should sign up as a Non-member... on the newmember.html form?
> >> (for
> >> > the purpose of paying the "Registry database maintenance fee of AUD
> >> 200")
> >> >
> >> > https://forms.apnic.net/newmember/newmember.html#page/applicant
> >> >
> >> > ftp://ftp.apnic.net/public/apnic/docs/non-member-fees.pdf
> >> >
> >> > We're prepared for some startup costs / requirements if necessary;
> >> however
> >> > the fee policy is there, and I _think_ the idea is that we will fall
> >> > into the exemptions for sign-up and Section 4.1: "Historical Address
> >> Holders"
> >> >
> >> > "Non-Member accounts who hold only Historical addresses and who pay
> >> > the Registry database maintenance fee of AUD 200 may continue to do
> >> so."
> >> >
> >> > "These accounts requesting ASNs are subject to an application fee
> >> > of AUD 1,000 per ASN and the annual fee for the registration record,
> >> > which is AUD 100 per ASN."
> >> >
> >> > I do not think we will need our own ASN for now, we'll need to get
> >> > someone else to announce this for us and tunnel it our way to get up
> >> > and running. (Or UWA, which no doubt possible, but bureaucratic; and we
> >> > can't take this for granted)
> >> >
> >> > "If these accounts receive a further address delegation from APNIC,
> >> > or receive a transfer of address space, the annual address fee will
> >> > apply, including both current and Historical addresses."
> >> >
> >> > Is that the transfer that we're avoiding?
> >> [...]
> >> > > The value in this allocation is really the discount on the fees due
> >> to the
> >> > > historical status. Unless you are a big ISP with existing allocations
> >> you'd
> >> > > go with option 1. There is no point throwing away $1200 a year to
> >> change
> >> > > the historical org ID.
> >> > >
> >> > > I have no problem with any due diligence. If you prefer to use escrow
> >> > > that's fine too, but it's a cost the buyer must bare.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is a private sale, thus no GST invoice. Sale can be formalised
> >> with a
> >> > > deed of sale, or preferred instrument the UWA's UCC requires.
> >> > > --
> >> > > *Regards*
> >> > > * Rob Ardill*
> >> >
> >> > Thank you, that sounds appropriate.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Nick.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 03:41:36PM +1030, Robert Ardill wrote:
> >> > On Fri, 1 Nov 2019 at 21:02, Nick Bannon <nick at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > Hi! Thanks for your patience - we've still got some things to do at
> >> our
> >> > > end and we want to make sure we've got a plan to get this routed and
> >> > > working for us. Talk to you soon; and feel free to contact me or us if
> >> > > we go quiet!
> >> >
> >> > Not a problem. Same if UCC do not wish to proceed, please let me know.
> >> [...]
> >> > No problem. Happy to answer questions from members or management on the
> >> > transfer.
> >> [...]
> >> > > So... do we in fact re-use your Non-Member account? or is the next
> >> step is
> >> > > that we should sign up as a Non-member... on the newmember.html form?
> >> (for
> >> > > the purpose of paying the "Registry database maintenance fee of AUD
> >> 200")
> >> > >
> >> > > https://forms.apnic.net/newmember/newmember.html#page/applicant
> >> > > ftp://ftp.apnic.net/public/apnic/docs/non-member-fees.pdf
> >> >
> >> > As the original owner and only owner, I've not become a Non-Member as
> >> there
> >> > was no tangible benefit. You are only required to become a member should
> >> > you wish to update the registry details or reverse DNS delegation. I've
> >> not
> >> > need to do any either. Reverse delegation was setup with bur.st before
> >> they
> >> > rolled into IAA, and I've continued IAA membership to ensure rDNS
> >> continued.
> >> >
> >> > For the /23 to be transferred, it will obviously require registry
> >> changes
> >> > and need to be under a non-member agreement.
> >> >
> >> > The process that I'm familiar with and compliant with the registry rules
> >> > is, I become a non-member and then we just update the registry. The
> >> > membership expiry will carry over. I have used this process recently
> >> > (April) without any complication. It took a few days for the APNIC
> >> HelpDesk
> >> > to process the registry update.
> >> >
> >> > We'd need to settle on the sale, before the process could proceed with
> >> > APNIC, as becoming a non-member requires I commit to the annual fee
> >> > perpetually, even in the instance the sale was not to proceed.
> >> >
> >> > If UCC requires assurance, I'm happy for an escrow service to be used,
> >> to
> >> > vet the transfer and release of funds.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > We're prepared for some startup costs / requirements if necessary;
> >> however
> >> > > the fee policy is there, and I _think_ the idea is that we will fall
> >> > > into the exemptions for sign-up and Section 4.1: "Historical Address
> >> > > Holders"
> >> > >
> >> > > "Non-Member accounts who hold only Historical addresses and who pay
> >> > > the Registry database maintenance fee of AUD 200 may continue to do
> >> so."
> >> > >
> >> > > "These accounts requesting ASNs are subject to an application fee
> >> > > of AUD 1,000 per ASN and the annual fee for the registration record,
> >> > > which is AUD 100 per ASN."
> >> > >
> >> > > I do not think we will need our own ASN for now, we'll need to get
> >> > > someone else to announce this for us and tunnel it our way to get up
> >> > > and running. (Or UWA, which no doubt possible, but bureaucratic; and
> >> we
> >> > > can't take this for granted)
> >> >
> >> > Correct, I've never had an ASN, else that would be in the sale too. I
> >> have
> >> > simply leverage my ISP to announce.
> >> >
> >> > 1. It's much simpler. I never multihomed with different ISP's
> >> > 2. Was more cost effective for me, as I'd need to become a
> >> non-member +
> >> > ASN fee, which was double than what Internode charged per year
> >> ($150).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > "If these accounts receive a further address delegation from APNIC,
> >> > > or receive a transfer of address space, the annual address fee will
> >> > > apply, including both current and Historical addresses."
> >> > >
> >> > > Is that the transfer that we're avoiding?
> >> >
> >> > Essentially yes. Non-members cannot receive allocations. Traditionally
> >> it's
> >> > to entice historical owners to join the registry. If you want an
> >> allocation
> >> > from APNIC you must be a full member and then as a full member you pay a
> >> > fee per IP and effectively you lose the historic benefits. Hence why a
> >> > number of organisations have multiple accounts, presumably to quarantine
> >> > historical benefits.
> >> [...]
--
Nick Bannon | "I made this letter longer than usual because
nick-sig at rcpt.to | I lack the time to make it shorter." - Pascal
More information about the tech
mailing list