[members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Pearson
daniel at privatesystems.net
Mon May 14 14:24:55 CEST 2018
I concur, there is no legal leg to stand on to force space to be returned. It just cannot happen, end period. Thinking about it is nothing but a fantasy and we live in reality. What your asking is no different than having a complete stranger walk up to your house, admire your big empty back yard, demand that you give it to them because they want to build a house in your neighborhood and well, you don't use your backyard so why can't they have it for free? On 05/14/2018 07:05 AM, Peter Linder wrote: > > 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> 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://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe: >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss at ripe.net >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss >> Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.se > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss at ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesystems.net -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/b416da99/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2092 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20180514/b416da99/attachment.jpg>
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]