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

William, Would you happen to be such holder of address apace?

From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of William
Sent: 14 May 2018 11:47
To: Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu>
Cc: members-discuss at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

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 <suport at bunea.eu<mailto:suport at bunea.eu>> 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
—


[cid:image001.jpg at 01D3EB81.4A1958C0]




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 <j.sundaram at 123telcom.nl<mailto:j.sundaram at 123telcom.nl>> wrote:

I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.

Van: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> 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

---
[XRV]

Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316
P Please consider the environment before printing this email


[Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/>
[Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<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 <members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net>> 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/
Unsubscribe: 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/
Unsubscribe: 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/
Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/68776fd8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2092 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/68776fd8/attachment.jpg>