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

You are a thief in this case. There is no way around it.
We obtained them by entirely other terms from entirely different organisations way before RIRs existence (or by transfer later which transfer the conditions unless converted to PA).
If you want them, pay the legacy owners a fair amount negotiated between them and whoever puts up the money (so no price gouging by ICANN/IANA/RIRs) - everything else is theft, coercion or use of force. And this will be fought in a US court, where you have absolutely zero chance to win this case in a jury trial. It is, again, simply theft.
--William WeberConsulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia https://ip6.im - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have.
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 13:10, Alex Lobachov  wrote:   
Bruno has it’s point. 
Legacy parts of the space should be reclaimed, but only ICANN has the power to do so. 
I don’t like to call it a thief, I’d rather say as all IP space is rented (owning a number isn’t bright), all that rented space, wherever it is legacy or current should be re-audited to justify the reason of use. 
--
Alex Lobachov
Telenet, sia
Network Systems Engineer
LinkedIn: https://lv.linkedin.com/in/allxll (https://lv.linkedin.com/in/allxll)
E-mail: alxl at telenet.lv (mailto:alxl at telenet.lv)
Skype: alxl__
Direct office: +371 67886224
Office: +371 67711111
   From: Bruno Carvalho (mailto:bruno.carvalho at xrv.pt)  
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:04 PM 
To: members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)  
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security 
   William,
 Legacy or not, at one point a regulation was introduced. And everyone should be regulated (pre-RIR or not).
 Is the same has if you own a car from back the traffic laws (1800 years?). If you drive it now, you have to comply with all the laws that regulate the sector.
Why the legacy address space owners shouldn't have to comply with the actual regulations?
 If we look deep on the spaces between 0.0.0.0 and 255.255.255.255 (that are not local or bogons), i bet that most than 50% are legacy and not used.
---
  Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt) | +351 300 404 316
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
  (https://www.xrv.pt)
 (https://www.facebook.com/xervers/) (https://twitter.com/xervers)
 On 2018-05-14 12:46, William wrote:
    These are legacy. They are not RIR business. 
No RIR can reclaim them (and reclaim is plainly wrong, they never owned them, this is pre-RIR space), they are private property. 
Taking them is theft and nothing else, no matter how you phrase it. 
 -- William Weber Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia   https://ip6.im (https://ip6.im/) - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have. 
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27, Bunea TELECOM  wrote:  
 I agree, 
There are tens of /8's available, some of them even unannounced. For example there are lots of entities which if they would gave up (even partially) of their unused blocks, it would push the IPv4 complete exaustion to 2020+.  
Thanks, 
Petru

 —   
Petru Bunea / CEO 
suport at bunea.eu (mailto:suport at bunea.eu) / +40752481282 (tel:+40752481282)Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT
http://www.bunea.eu (http://www.bunea.eu/) / +40745495495 (tel:+40745495495)
On 14 May 2018, at 11:20, Janarthanan Sundaram  wrote: 
  I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.
  Van: members-discuss  Namens Bruno Carvalho
Verzonden: maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11
Aan: members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
Onderwerp: Re: [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 (http://xrv.pt)) | +351 300 404 316
P Please consider the environment before printing this email
   (https://www.xrv.pt/)
 (https://www.facebook.com/xervers/) (https://twitter.com/xervers)
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  Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet
Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34
Vastaanottaja: pdonner at znak.fi (mailto:pdonner at znak.fi); members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto: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 (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
https://mailman.ripe.net/ (https://mailman.ripe.net/)
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devnet.fi (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devnet.fi)
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
https://mailman.ripe.net/ (https://mailman.ripe.net/)
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.pt (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.pt)
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
https://mailman.ripe.net/ (https://mailman.ripe.net/)
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu)
_______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
https://mailman.ripe.net/ (https://mailman.ripe.net/)
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.pt (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.pt) 

------------------------------------
 _______________________________________________
members-discuss mailing list
members-discuss at ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss at ripe.net)
https://mailman.ripe.net/ (https://mailman.ripe.net/)
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/5dd32554/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: email-signature.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2092 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/5dd32554/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: blocked.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 118 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/5dd32554/attachment.gif>