RIPE NCC Executive Board election

Many of you here may be dues-paying members of both ARIN and RIPE.

Those of you who are may wish to be aware of the fact that there will
be an election held on (I believe) May 14th, just a day or two from
now, for three open RIPE NCC Executive Board seats.

I have it on good authority that one of the candidates running for
the open RIPE NCC board seats in this election has hired legal
counsel in South Africa, and that said legal counsel has then
proceeded to threaten various officials of the City of Cape Town,
South Africa with possible legal action if they do not relinquish
to him their rights in and title to the 165.25.0.0/16 block, a
block that all historical records, including even ARIN "WhoWas"
historical records show, clearly and unambiguously, has been
legally registered to the City of Cape Town for over twenty years.
(I am assured that at no time did the City of Cape Town ever sell,
trade, or barter away their rights to this valuable IPv4 block,
and that they are defending themselves, as best as they can, against
this attempt to extort them out of their rightful prooperty.)

Where I come from, this kind of thing is called barratry, but you
be the judge.

In any case, prior to the RIPE election, I wanted to let you all
know these facts about the candidate in question, as well as a
number of additional startling facts relating to the people who
nominated this candidate for a RIPE NCC Executive board seat, as
documented by my friend, South African journalist Jan Vermeulen:

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/350973-man-connected-to-african-ip-address-heist-running-for-board-position-at-european-ip-address-organisation.html

I could go into more detail about many of the nominators mentioned
in the above article, but I don't want to make this email too long,
so I'll await some explict request for that additional info. For now
it should suffice to make at least some of the basic facts more widely
available, a task which is accomplished just by sharing the above link,
IMHO.

Regards,
rfg

P.S. I have been specifically and explicitly enjoined and constrained
from posting here anything at all that might smack of being either
partisan or of an even vaguely "political" nature, and thus, I will
refrain from doing so. I would be remiss hoever if I did not at least
note in passing that history records that in times such as these, when
people of good character and good intent are, as they rightly should be,
focused on the health and safety of themselves, their loved ones, and
their professional collegues, and when the gaze of the world is elsewhere,
persons of less than honorable intent reach for power and, with unfortunate
regularity, obtain it.

I cannot and do not ask that those of you who have been saddled with
personal or local crises during this sad time turn away from those
responsibilities to give attention to matters of Internet governance,
however urgent those may appear at the moment. For all of us, our first-
order duty lies nearby, with family, friends, and collegues. But for
those of you who still have a few cycles to spare, I do ask that you
consider carefully the newfound and critical importance of this tool,
this Internet, in the lives of so many millions, all around the world,
and the self-evident risks of its governance being handed over, by default
or otherwise, to persons with an interest only in what is best for them
personally, to the exclusion of all else.

P.P.S. I would be posting this info and the above link also to the
very relevant RIPE members-discuss mailing list, but as I am not a
due-paying member of RIPE, I have no ability to do so. Separately,
due in no small part to the candidate's own recent and manifest on-list
transgressions on that very list, that list has recently been switched
to a heavy-handed moderation, under which, it seems, even discussion of
the pros and cons of candidates in the upcoming RIPE NCC Executive Board
election are now categorized as "too controversial" and thus, themselves,
are now entirely off-limits.

I cannot help but be reminded of a catch-phrase that I saw somewhere,
not too long ago:

                 "Democracy dies in darkness."
                                  -- anon

Hi Ronald,

The election starts today, but in order to be able to vote, you need to pre-register with your organizations before 16:00 Amsterdam time *today*.

Here is the info and registration link:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2020/voting-at-the-gm

and the list of candidates and links to their bios:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2020/confirmed-candidates

Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet

El 13/5/20 11:52, "NANOG en nombre de Ronald F. Guilmette" <nanog-bounces@nanog.org en nombre de rfg@tristatelogic.com> escribió:

    Many of you here may be dues-paying members of both ARIN and RIPE.

    Those of you who are may wish to be aware of the fact that there will
    be an election held on (I believe) May 14th, just a day or two from
    now, for three open RIPE NCC Executive Board seats.

    I have it on good authority that one of the candidates running for
    the open RIPE NCC board seats in this election has hired legal
    counsel in South Africa, and that said legal counsel has then
    proceeded to threaten various officials of the City of Cape Town,
    South Africa with possible legal action if they do not relinquish
    to him their rights in and title to the 165.25.0.0/16 block, a
    block that all historical records, including even ARIN "WhoWas"
    historical records show, clearly and unambiguously, has been
    legally registered to the City of Cape Town for over twenty years.
    (I am assured that at no time did the City of Cape Town ever sell,
    trade, or barter away their rights to this valuable IPv4 block,
    and that they are defending themselves, as best as they can, against
    this attempt to extort them out of their rightful prooperty.)

    Where I come from, this kind of thing is called barratry, but you
    be the judge.

    In any case, prior to the RIPE election, I wanted to let you all
    know these facts about the candidate in question, as well as a
    number of additional startling facts relating to the people who
    nominated this candidate for a RIPE NCC Executive board seat, as
    documented by my friend, South African journalist Jan Vermeulen:

    https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/350973-man-connected-to-african-ip-address-heist-running-for-board-position-at-european-ip-address-organisation.html

    I could go into more detail about many of the nominators mentioned
    in the above article, but I don't want to make this email too long,
    so I'll await some explict request for that additional info. For now
    it should suffice to make at least some of the basic facts more widely
    available, a task which is accomplished just by sharing the above link,
    IMHO.

    Regards,
    rfg

    P.S. I have been specifically and explicitly enjoined and constrained
    from posting here anything at all that might smack of being either
    partisan or of an even vaguely "political" nature, and thus, I will
    refrain from doing so. I would be remiss hoever if I did not at least
    note in passing that history records that in times such as these, when
    people of good character and good intent are, as they rightly should be,
    focused on the health and safety of themselves, their loved ones, and
    their professional collegues, and when the gaze of the world is elsewhere,
    persons of less than honorable intent reach for power and, with unfortunate
    regularity, obtain it.

    I cannot and do not ask that those of you who have been saddled with
    personal or local crises during this sad time turn away from those
    responsibilities to give attention to matters of Internet governance,
    however urgent those may appear at the moment. For all of us, our first-
    order duty lies nearby, with family, friends, and collegues. But for
    those of you who still have a few cycles to spare, I do ask that you
    consider carefully the newfound and critical importance of this tool,
    this Internet, in the lives of so many millions, all around the world,
    and the self-evident risks of its governance being handed over, by default
    or otherwise, to persons with an interest only in what is best for them
    personally, to the exclusion of all else.

    P.P.S. I would be posting this info and the above link also to the
    very relevant RIPE members-discuss mailing list, but as I am not a
    due-paying member of RIPE, I have no ability to do so. Separately,
    due in no small part to the candidate's own recent and manifest on-list
    transgressions on that very list, that list has recently been switched
    to a heavy-handed moderation, under which, it seems, even discussion of
    the pros and cons of candidates in the upcoming RIPE NCC Executive Board
    election are now categorized as "too controversial" and thus, themselves,
    are now entirely off-limits.

    I cannot help but be reminded of a catch-phrase that I saw somewhere,
    not too long ago:

                     "Democracy dies in darkness."
                                      -- anon

Hello Everyone,

My apology for not providing an official response to the first “The Ronald Show” that took place here many months ago, I was out of hospital after full anesthesia and it took me months to get back to myself.

What was done towards me and what being done to me by Ronald is an intentional personal attack against me and I will explain.

I didn’t agree to provide private business documents to the illegal anonymous organization “The Spamhaus Project” that they tried to extort from me - then I found out who are the real people behind the illegal anonymous organization “The Spamhaus Project” - and then they started to attack me (including here on Nanog, with false information, when I was out of hospital and wasn’t in the condition to respond to them).

“The Spamhaus Project” is an illegal anonymous organization according to their own words in their own following presentation:

https://www.scribd.com/document/445894312/Spamhaus-Illegal-Private-Data-Violation

They wrote in it that they receive on a regular basis - massive amount of illegaly-obtained privacy data from their contacts in many internet companies and internet organizations - and then they share it in illegal way (without any warrant) with Law Enforcement Agencies - this is the reason that Law Enforcement Agencies are doing nothing regarding the illegal anonymous organization “The Spamhaus Project”.

Ronald Guilmette is the front person of the illegal anonymous organization “The Spamhaus Project”.

Hello Everyone,

My apology for not providing an official response to the first "The
Ronald Show" that took place here many months ago, I was out of
hospital after full anesthesia and it took me months to get back to
myself.

Ah, yeah.

I cannot help but be reminded of a catch-phrase that I saw somewhere,
not too long ago:

                 "Democracy dies in darkness."
                                  -- anon

That's the Washington Post's tagline, not "anon".

Whatever happened to the good old days of Jim Fleming?

sigh.

... JG

* elad@netstyle.io (Elad Cohen) [Wed 13 May 2020, 15:46 CEST]:

Ronald was called an antisemitic and a racist person here on Nanog in the following two links, by people which are not related to me:
Imgur: The magic of the Internet

Since you're quoting me here, let me reiterate that I was out of line in that posting, as I posted to the mailing list at the time as well.

  -- Niels.

LOL the IPv4+ thing was a pretty entertaining read. You clearly don’t have even a basic understanding of the v4 packet structure, or that the octet display concept is simply for human benefit. IPv6 can be implemented with ‘software updates’ too…

Dude, you sound like a rambling loon in this e-mail.

Hate to break it to you, but there's nothing illegal about Spamhaus or what it does. This has been proven in court cases before.

Your supposed 'invention' for IPv4+ has been suggested before many times publicly in different variations (like for example, .999), and usually laughed at, because it lacks a fundamental understanding of how IPv4 was designed and why it was designed that way.

Your anti-spam 'solutions' are just another "ultimate solution to the spam problem" that isn't going to work, and that quite a few us of laugh at every time someone brings up their own version of it.

Being a former DNSbl maintainer, I've seen e-mails like this hundreds of times from people like you. Some things never change, do they?

LOL at people that are against anything besides IPv6 when it will take much much more time until IPv6 will be fully deployed. You clearly didn’t understand how IPv4+ works.

Spamhaus is an illegal anonymous organization according to their own words in their own following private presentation:

https://www.scribd.com/document/445894312/Spamhaus-Illegal-Private-Data-Violation

When they sued in court it wasn’t related to them providing massive amount of illgaly-obtained privacy data on a regular basis to Law Enforcement Agencies (without any warrant), please don’t mislead the readers.

The principals in IPv4+ weren’t suggested anywhere else, can you provide a link ? instead of misleading the readers again.

Not even a single fact in your reply, only hollow big words.

Meant to send this to the list, but hit reply instead of reply to list. Oops. Fixed.

The principals in IPv4+ weren't suggested anywhere else, can you provide a link ? instead of misleading the readers again.

Those of us who have actually been involved here and elsewhere for a very long time have seen people bring it up every year.

Their ultimate solution to the IPv4 issue.

Like I said, we all just chuckle at it whenever anyone makes a big deal about it.

There's a fundamental lack of understanding from people on why you can't just 'bolt on' more addresses to IPv4. Data structures in memory, software APIs and syscalls, hex notations, subnetting, route determination and propigation with internet routing protocols like BGP, hardware CAM, among many other things.

Not even a single fact in your reply, only hollow big words.

I'm not here to do your homework. Its not my fault you lack the understanding as to why people are openly mocking you here on your 'inventions'.

You mean what everyone's already implemented with IPv6? A complete overhaul/replacement for IPv4, with all the changes already done and fully supported in most major software packages, servers, routers, and switches?

Enlighten me on why you are so obsessed with re-implementing IPv6 as IPv4+?

I really love that the entire premise of this stems from that people doing ‘software upgrades’ to IPv4-2 - Electric Boogaloo would be any faster than those same people just migrating to IPv6. Seriously hilarious.

If they won’t move to something already supported on their software, why would operators do software upgrades to buggy code.

We will take your path, lets wait 20 years for IPv6 to be fully deployed.

Hi Brielle,

http://bill.herrin.us/network/ipxl.html

Someone said much as you did way back in 2007. It bugged me, this
defeatism that said there was no way IPv4 could have been
incrementally updated to support more addresses, that a greenfield
protocol was the only path forward. So I designed an upgrade factoring
in the need for pre- and post-upgrade stacks and networks to
interoperate over a period of years. It took all of 4 printed pages.

It's clear IPv6 is the path forward. It was clear in 2007. But don't
for a second believe that's because IPv4 could not have been upgraded
in place. That's a failure of imagination.

I now return you to the scheduled brawl between Guilmette and Cohen.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

Interesting, thank you for the insight and some detailed breakdown. I'm actually really glad someone with some more experience jumped in with some actual background in this effort.

One thing that cropped up in my mind from the late 90s and AFAIK still goes on today - isn't it pretty well documented that more then a small number of 'professional' firewalls have a habit of just outright discarding/rejecting/barfing on packets with options in them that they don't recognize?

IE: PMTU/ECN blackhole redux.

Of course since IPx1 requires some stack upgrades, so that point is moot really.

Sigh. Back to the original thought that its just easier to go IPv6 then try to 'fix' whats already out there.

Peace,

“As a matter of fact” - if you created an implementation please send me the sourcecode.

LOL funny seeing you changing your mind by 180 degrees when someone you know in the community writing to you the exact same thing.

Grow a backbone please.

Hi Brielle,

That's not the half of it. Pull very hard on that thread and you'll
quickly find your way in to the PMTUD problem.

Path MTU discovery is the one place in the IP architecture which
abandons the end-to-end principle. If an intermediate device fails to
communicate to the sender that it's packet is too large for a hop, TCP
between the sender and receiver fails. In practice this happens a lot
and for many, many reasons. It's a very broken design.

Operationally, we address this with all sorts of tricks like assuring
the MTU on a link always supports a 1500 byte packet and rewriting the
TCP MSS option in TCP SYN packets whenever we know it won't. None of
these is a 100% solution so we still regularly field failure reports
where a user successfully connects to a service but no data is
transferred.

Dig in to how Amazon AWS deals with EC2 instances with a 9000 byte MTU
talking with the Internet some time. The MSS gets chopped in TCP and
AWS generates a local frag needed message for UDP.

Regards,
Bill Herrin