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

But there is no point in arguing this. It has been discussed over and over:

It is not feasible to "reclaim" legacy space, just because you want it 
for free or at a very low cost. Current holders have a good legal ground 
to refuse.  Even if it was somehow reclaimed on a large scale, it would 
last for a year or so? Remember, most addresses would need to go to 
countries with large populations where Internet is not built up like it 
is in Europe or North America. Then what? Even if RIPE could reallocate 
addresses to last a few more years it would mean even *more* work to do 
v6, not less.

Just buy the addresses you need, if more than RIPE will allocate to you. 
I know this sucks, especially in poorer countries. But that is probably 
the only way your business is going to happen, in the short term. An 
alternative would be to bother the IETF to release their reserved space 
but that is probably a waste of time (never mind de-bogonizing it).

Right now IPv4 shortage is hurting a little because of cost. It will 
eventually start hurting more, and in different ways. There are ways to 
prepare for that, including making sure v6 is enabled and functioning on 
everything you make.

/Peter



Den 2018-05-14 kl. 13:38, skrev David Benwell:
>
> No its about preventing the waste of IP Addresses. Why allow a LLR to 
> retain address space that they may never have used.
>
> *From:*members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces at ripe.net] *On 
> Behalf Of *William
> *Sent:* 14 May 2018 12:32
> *To:* Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu>
> *Cc:* members-discuss at ripe.net
> *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
>
> But this does not CHANGE IT IS THEFT, please have a look at your 
> history (or here in Croatia) - you want to do the same, steal from 
> some parts of the society ('the rich') to 'benefit' the whole which 
> ends horribly wrong.
>
> This discussion is almost as absurd as the Russian suggestion to move 
> RIPE to Moscow.
>
> --
>
> William Weber
>
> Consulting, 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 13:16, Bunea TELECOM <suport at bunea.eu 
> <mailto:suport at bunea.eu>> wrote:
>
>     Everybody that says it’s theft, please consider the fact that
>     those ‘guys’ got their hands on /8 blocks tens of years ago, and
>     probably did not pay a dime for them.
>
>     In the light of events, one /8, respecting the 1024 IPv4 policy
>     that RIPE has, would belong to over 16.000 LIR accounts!
>
>     And I must say, 16.000 companies would create a lot of business
>     compared to one company that holds a /8 :)
>
>     Thanks
>
>     —
>
>
>
>
>
>
>     *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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl at telenet.lv
>         <mailto:alxl at telenet.lv>> 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
>         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.
>
>         ---
>
>         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 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
>             <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
>
>                 —
>
>
>                 <email-signature.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>                 *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
>
>                     ---
>
>                     <blocked.gif>
>
>                     	
>
>                     Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt <http://xrv.pt/>) |
>                     +351 300 404 316
>                     P Please consider the environment before printing
>                     this email
>
>                     	
>
>                     <blocked.gif> <https://www.xrv.pt/>
>                     <blocked.gif>
>                     <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/><blocked.gif>
>                     <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
>
>             _______________________________________________
>             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/alxl%40telenet.lv
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> members-discuss mailing list
> members-discuss at ripe.net
> https://mailman.ripe.net/
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.se

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/bab145e3/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2092 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/bab145e3/attachment.jpg>