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

Hi Dana,

That is a little weird, indeed. In theory that organisation has lost all resources according to RIPE SLA, if no action has been taken before the copmany was stricken from the business registry. But try to "dig deeper" and see if the company indeed ceased it's existence or not.

With respect to any Ipv4 transaction. My suggestion is to use escrow.com - the biggest escrow service provider in the world as far as I know, and one of the cheapest - and specify in the conditions of the transaction "purchase of IP blocks xxx.xxx.xxx.0/xx from company x to company y. The transaction is considered completed once this transfer appears at https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/transfer-statistics/within-ripe-ncc-service-region/ipv4-transfer-statistics ". And of course, besides the escrow.com transaction, have a direct purchase agreement with the seller.

Matei Storch
[F]: General Manager
[M]: +40728.555.004
[E]: matei at profisol.ro
[C]: Profisol Telecom


-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Dana Konkin (Onwave)
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 13:19
To: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

Thanks all. I read with interest your thoughts related to the issues related businesses juggling IPv4 blocks around. And am of the view that if it can be sold then it isn't needed and should go back into the RIR 'pool' for other growing LIRs that need to connect their owned or customer systems.

Anyway.
An update about this, and a further question about what to expect from a broker.

After choosing a broker from the list on RIPE's site we set up escrow, and being told by the broker of their due-diligence checks (they said they would verify the prefix was not routed anywhere, not in any blacklist, is verified to be "owned" by the seller, and that there were no "liens or encumbrances" (the brokers words)).

All good so far.
The broker's answer to my request for the results of their due-diligence wasn't particularly thorough or specific. 
So before transmitting the funds to escrow I thought I'd check the local country business registry for the seller organisation, which showed the company to have be ceased from trading about two years ago.  

So we are at the beginning again. Is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect that any broker would have spotted that earlier?



Appreciate your feedback,
Dana







DANA KONKIN

Head of Technology

Mobile UK: +44 (0)7449 200 010
Mobile DE: +49 (0)1523 678 0060

Office: 0844 775 0000
 
www.onwave.com      

CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE:
This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above and the contents should not be disclosed to any other person nor copies taken. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of onwave Limited unless otherwise specifically stated. As internet communications are not secure we do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor responsibility for any change made to this message after it was sent by the original sender. We advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment as we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses.
Registered in England No: 7490613

-----Original Message-----
From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thomas A. Bibb
Sent: 14 May 2018 11:01
To: Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster at bogons.net>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

IPv4 is still widely used and mores to the point that adoption is somewhat lacking due to major access networks not deploying v6.

Simply responding with “time better spent rolling out v6” isn't an answer, the community is looking for a half way house, an interim solution to ease the woes of v4 policy.

I don’t think any one is saying we shouldn’t deploy v6 nor that they want to continue and use v4 despite the looming depletion.

Tom

> On 14 May 2018, at 10:49, Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster at bogons.net> wrote:
> 
> On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:20:35AM +0000, Janarthanan Sundaram wrote:
>> I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.
> 
> Why? This has been discussed many times, there is little space in 
> unused blocks and if it was possible to liberate it (unlikely without 
> a legal fight) it would probably run out in less time than it took to get it.
> 
> This is a waste of time better spent rolling out v6, in the time spent 
> arguing over v4 this could have been done already.
> 
> At this point the only answer is roll out v6 or get off the net as 
> you're holding up progress for everyone else.
> 
> regards
> brandon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: 
> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hello%40thomasb
> ibb.co.uk

_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dana.konkin%40onwave.com
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net
https://mailman.ripe.net/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/matei%40profisol.ro