[members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

This discussion is quite interesting. But i think it should be discussed
between all RiRs. Not only for RIPE.
When we look at big companies, like Microsoft, and do a simple scan of
their assigned IP ranges... we found some /14 and several /16
unassigned/unused ranges. 

Personnally, i think we should focus on 2 main things: 

- Improve IPv6 implementation all over the territory (i know this is
painfull for many LIRs because it implies additional work and purchase
of new equipments. But let's face it. We are in 2018. If an equipment
doesn't support IPv6, it's very obsolete and not performant). 

- Check with the other RiRs what would be the best to do with those big
unused ranges that are owned by companies that don't use them. 

Regards

---

Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt) | +351 300 404 316
P Please consider the environment before printing this email [1]
 [2] [3] 

On 2018-05-14 09:51, Hans Govenius wrote:

> Hello
> 
> Not needed IP = The addressese company is ready to sell for a small profit 😊 ? This is probably good indication that its not used anymore. One option is to automatically block all and any IP transaction which does not involve transaction of the whole company/business. It is a question that can IP be a commodity. Now its a commodity that is getting more rare by the year. Maybe IP should be considered an jointly owned part of infrastructure which is deployed by need basis. (Socialistic way)
> 
> Other option is to start to take money per IP. This would instantly mean that everyone would look up to own ip spaces. Let say it would cost 1 euro / year for a IP it would only be approx 1000 euros for the smallest allocation. Someone with 10 million IP addressese are likely to happily pay for it fi they are in use, but if they are not i would think they would be handed back. (Capitalistic way)
> 
> One option is also to go with the current system because internet is working so its not horribly wrong at the moment either. 
> 
> One interesting this is tho that old LIR:s are likely to wanting to keep these things unchanged. New LIR:s are more likely to want changes as this is heavily favoring old LIR:s. And every year a proportionally larger part will be the ones with few IP:s and same vote than the one with alot of IP:s and also only 1 vote. 
> 
> Br. Hans 
> 
> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net> Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet
> Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34
> Vastaanottaja: pdonner at znak.fi; members-discuss at ripe.net
> Aihe: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
> 
> W dniu 14.05.2018 o 09:25, Philip Donner pisze: 
> 
>> I would like to amplify Dave's good proposal, by suggesting that unused addresses should be handed back to RIPE, so that they can be added to a pool of addresses reserved for LIRs who needs them for non-profit promotion of IP networks.
> 
> Ok, but there is never ending story to resolve: how to define 'unused addresses'. Because not announced in BGP definitely != not used.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Tomasz Śląski
> pl.skonet
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devnet.fi
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.pt
 

Links:
------
[1] https://www.xrv.pt
[2] https://www.facebook.com/xervers/
[3] https://twitter.com/xervers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/f5098110/attachment.html>