- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
by Saket Kale 14 May '18

14 May '18

There is a unsubscribe link right below with each email that you are getting. Will be easy if you read the whole email and do it instead of making responses to the thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/xxxxxxxx <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/devendra.g%40tutisho…> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Thanks, Saket https://hostroyale.com On 14 May 2018 at 17:49, Dmitriy Krinitsyn <Dmitriy.Krinitsyn(a)virtualfort.ru > wrote: > Can you take me off this email chain too, please. > > > ------------------------------ > *От:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> от имени Peter > Linder <peter(a)fiberdirekt.se> > *Отправлено:* 14 мая 2018 г. 15:05:35 > *Кому:* David Benwell; William; Bunea TELECOM > *Копия:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Тема:* Re: [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@ripe.net > <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *William > *Sent:* 14 May 2018 12:32 > *To:* Bunea TELECOM <suport(a)bunea.eu> <suport(a)bunea.eu> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)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(a)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(a)bunea.eu / +40752481282 > > *Bunea TELECOM* / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT > http://www.bunea.eu / +40745495495 > > > > On 14 May 2018, at 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl(a)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(a)telenet.lv > Skype: alxl__ > Direct office: +371 67886224 > Office: +371 67711111 > > > > *From:* Bruno Carvalho <bruno.carvalho(a)xrv.pt> > > *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 2:04 PM > > *To:* members-discuss(a)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. > > --- > > [image: XRV] > > Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt) | +351 300 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this email > > [image: Visit our website] <https://www.xrv.pt/> > [image: Facebook] <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[image: 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 - 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(a)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(a)bunea.eu / +40752481282 > > *Bunea TELECOM* / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT > http://www.bunea.eu / +40745495495 > > > > On 14 May 2018, at 11:20, Janarthanan Sundaram <j.sundaram(a)123telcom.nl> > wrote: > > > > I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused > blocks. > > > > > *Van:* members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *Namens *Bruno > Carvalho > *Verzonden:* maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 > *Aan:* members-discuss(a)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) | +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 [image: > 😊] ? 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(a)ripe.net> Puolesta > REG ID: pl.skonet > Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 > Vastaanottaja: pdonner(a)znak.fi; members-discuss(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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 listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.… > > > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members- > discuss/devendra.g%40tutishost.com > >

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
by Daniel Pearson 14 May '18

14 May '18

Hi there, This is a mailing list, please use the unsubscribe link at the bottom of these emails that is associated with your email address! On 05/14/2018 07:45 AM, Anas Tablieh wrote: > > Please remove my mail address from this chat !!!!!! > > *From:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> *On Behalf > Of *Daniel Pearson > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 14:25 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security > > 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@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *William > *Sent:* 14 May 2018 12:32 > *To:* Bunea TELECOM <suport(a)bunea.eu> <mailto:suport@bunea.eu> > *Cc:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)bunea.eu > <mailto:suport@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 > > — > > > imap://daniel%40knownhost%2Ecom@mail.knownhost.com:143/fetch%3EUID%3E.INBOX%3E303885?header=quotebody&part=1.2&filename=image001.jpg > > > > > > *Petru Bunea* / CEO > suport(a)bunea.eu <mailto:suport@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(a)telenet.lv <mailto:alxl@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(a)telenet.lv <mailto:alxl@telenet.lv> > Skype: alxl__ > Direct office: +371 67886224 > Office: +371 67711111 > > *From:*Bruno Carvalho <mailto:bruno.carvalho@xrv.pt> > > *Sent:*Monday, May 14, 2018 2:04 PM > > *To:*members-discuss@ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@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. > > --- > > Image removed by sender. XRV > > > > Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt <http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 > 404 316 > P Please consider the environment before printing this > email > > > > Image removed by sender. Visit our website > <https://www.xrv.pt/> > Image removed by sender. Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>Image removed by > sender. 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(a)bunea.eu <mailto:suport@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(a)bunea.eu <mailto:suport@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(a)123telcom.nl > <mailto:j.sundaram@123telcom.nl>> wrote: > > I think we should prioritize on on point > two: what to do with unused blocks. > > > *Van:* members-discuss > <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> > *Namens *Bruno Carvalho > *Verzonden:* maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 > *Aan:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> > Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet > Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta > 2018 10.34 > Vastaanottaja: pdonner(a)znak.fi > <mailto:pdonner@znak.fi>; > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devn… > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv… > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv… > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > members-discuss mailing list > members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40… > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > members-discuss mailing list > > members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss > > Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%4… >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security
by Dominik Nowacki 14 May '18

14 May '18

Please read the message you responded to and subsequently scroll down to the bottom of this email. It’s surprising how many technical people respond with such messages to this list… Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/> UK Dedicated Servers<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/dedicated-servers/> | Connectivity<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/connectivity/> From: Anas Tablieh <ATablieh(a)sierrawireless.com> Sent: 14 May 2018 13:27 To: Dominik Nowacki <dominik(a)clouvider.co.uk>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: RE: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security Please remove my mail address from this chat !!!!!! Anas TABLIEH :: Senior Engineer, Customer Support From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of Dominik Nowacki Sent: lundi 14 mai 2018 14:06 To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security No, it’s not possible. This is a RIPE membership discussion mailing list. The instruction on how to deal with your requests are at the bottom of every single email…. Kind Regards, Dominik Nowacki Clouvider<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/> UK Dedicated Servers<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/dedicated-servers/> | Connectivity<https://www.clouvider.co.uk/connectivity/> From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> On Behalf Of John Jeffery Sent: 14 May 2018 12:46 To: David Benwell <dave(a)it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>>; William <william(a)william.si<mailto:william@william.si>>; Bunea TELECOM <suport(a)bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security guys can you take me off this email chain? thanks v much ________________________________ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of David Benwell <dave(a)it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:44:26 PM To: William; Bunea TELECOM Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [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@ripe.net] On Behalf Of William Sent: 14 May 2018 11:47 To: Bunea TELECOM <suport(a)bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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(a)bunea.eu<mailto:suport@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@01D3EB84.377FD010] Petru Bunea / CEO suport(a)bunea.eu<mailto:suport@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(a)123telcom.nl<mailto:j.sundaram@123telcom.nl>> wrote: I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks. Van: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Namens Bruno Carvalho Verzonden: maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 Aan: members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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 --- [Image removed by sender. XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Image removed by sender. Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Image removed by sender. Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Image removed by sender. 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(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 Vastaanottaja: pdonner(a)znak.fi<mailto:pdonner@znak.fi>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@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(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devn… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv… _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss(a)ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

1 0

Any body looking for a room @ Sofitel for RIPE 76?
by Payam Poursaied 11 May '18

11 May '18

Hi If anyone looking for a room at Sofitel Marseille Vieux Port Hotel, contact me off list Regards Payam

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] IP transfer (in)security
by Mike Burns 09 May '18

09 May '18

Hi Dana, We are RIPE brokers and the use of escrow is an appropriate way to ensure safety for both parties. We haven't dealt with you so I am free to comment. The key is to establish the release of funds to the seller is connected to the definition of a successful transfer performed by RIPE. Usually we ensure the relevant Whois entries have been changed, and can be confirmed by the escrow agent via RIPE's public Whois server. The assumption is that the change in Whois is the definition of transfer completion. If Whois does not change within a specified time period, or parties are notified by RIPE of a failed transfer, then the escrow agent returns funds to the buyer. This structure is important because in every transfer there is an uncontrollable third-party (RIPE) with veto power. We have completed over 500 transfers, and in only one case was there a Whois change that was later challenged by RIPE, and that was a legacy transfer which has certain different characteristics from a non-legacy transfer. So your broker is steering you in the right direction to ensure protection for both buyer and seller. You just need a trustworthy third-party to act as escrow agent, somebody unrelated to buyer or seller whom both trust to hold the funds while RIPE processes the transfer, and releases to seller upon completion or back to buyer if the transfer fails. Most escrow agents will release funds to the seller with the buyer acceptance of the completion of the transfer. Buyer acknowledges receipt, and funds are then released. We prefer escrow agents who do not require buyer release, but who can depend on monitoring and verifying Whois changes themselves, since RIPE makes the data publicly accessible. Then when Whois changes, there is no way for the buyer to prevent release of funds to the seller for any reason. We find IPv4 transfer to be largely risk-free with the use of appropriate escrow agents. You should get reference from the escrow agent of course. Regards and good luck, Mike Burns ------- Original Message ------- >From : Dana Konkin (Onwave)[mailto:Dana.Konkin@onwave.com] Sent : 5/9/2018 7:54:37 AM To : members-discuss(a)ripe.net Cc : Subject : RE: [members-discuss] IP transfer (in)security Greetings all. We have gone to a RIPE broker to obtain IPs that we badly need for upcoming customers. Never having been through this process before I am slightly timid because of the cost of IPs these days, and so the plan is to use escrow. So, my question relates to how to avoid getting my employer to hand out a wad of cash without a clear means to be totally secure that they will be able to use the IPs. Is it possible to obtain from RIPE a guaranteed way for the Escrow agent to check with 100% accuracy that the IP transfer has been accepted by RIPE, that we can begin announcing and using the prefix, and that my company is safe to release money to the seller of the IP addresses? Thanks very much Dana PS -My apology for not being able to find any previous answer to this in the archives.

1 0

Multiple LIR account mergers
by Aleksey Bulgakov 04 May '18

04 May '18

Hello, all. What do you think if the NCC allow to merge accounts of the same company without 24 months restriction? I thing this question should be discussed on the RIPE meeting in Marseille. ----- Kind regards, Alexey

23 29

Destek Talebi Oluşturulamadı
by Fiber Server İnternet Teknolojileri 02 May '18

02 May '18

Sayın; members-discuss(a)ripe.net, Destek sistemimize göndermiş olduğunuz mesaj, kayıtlı bir müşterimizin adresinden gönderildiği için kabul edilmemiştir. Desteğe ihtiyacınız varsa lütfen kayıtlı posta adresinizle sisteme giriş yaparak yeni talep oluşturunuz. https://www.fiberserver.net.tr/clientarea.php https://www.fiberserver.net.tr/submitticket.php https://www.fiberserver.net.tr/announcements.php https://www.fiberserver.net.tr/knowledgebase.php

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Multiple LIR account mergers
by info＠hipernet.com.tr 02 May '18

02 May '18

Sayın Abonemiz arızanız alınmıştır. Ekiplerimiz en kısa sürede sizinle iletişime geçecektir.

1 0

Russian government blocked 18mln IPs at 20/04/2018
by Juri 30 Apr '18

30 Apr '18

Hello everybody, Short update. Russian authorities block about 18.858 mln IPv4 right now trying to get Telegram messenger down with no success. Life statistics and graphs https://usher2.club/en/ A lot of services where affected. RKN added to block list big IPs block of Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Digital Ocean, Aruba, OVH, Hezner. They started to block popular Europe datacenters. Such things should never happen, Internet should be protected from such issues. Just examples (information from https://t.me/rknshowtime) Blocked subnets: 35.176.0.0/15 - Amazon Data Services UK 51.15.0.0/16 - ONLINE_NET_DEDICATED_SERVERS_NL 18.204.0.0/14 - Amazon Technologies Inc. 91.121.0.0/16 - OVH SAS 46.101.128.0/17 - Digital Ocean, Inc. 185.166.212.0/23 - Clouding.io Virtual Machine Hosting 178.63.0.0/16 - Hetzner Online GmbH 51.136.0.0/15 - Microsoft Limited UK 18.218.0.0/16 - Amazon Technologies Inc. 18.236.0.0/15 - Amazon.com, Inc. 54.64.0.0/13 - Amazon Technologies Inc. 23.251.128.0/19 - Google LLC 174.138.0.0/17 - DigitalOcean, LLC 188.166.0.0/17 - Digital Ocean, Inc. 159.203.0.0/16 - DigitalOcean, LLC 128.199.0.0/16 - DigitalOcean Cloud 159.65.0.0/16 - DigitalOcean, LLC Any blacklisting buy networks is a bad idea. -- Juri +7 (499) 346-76-29

12 14

Russian government blocked 2mln IPs at 16/04/2018
by Juri 24 Apr '18

24 Apr '18

Good time of day! I want to bring up discussion about situation in Internet inside Russian Federation. I find current situation not good for Internet, not good for RIPE community, for ISPs and for progress itself. Short background. Russian government asked Telegram messenger service (like Viber, Watsup, etc, they can be the next) to give them keys of end-to-end encryption between users. Telegram refused to give it because it stands for freedom, constitution rights of people and telegram says it's not possible to give that keys because they don't have it. At least at Friday 13 of April 2018 they blocked websites of Telegram and at Monday 16 they blocked all technical networks of Telegram inside Russian Federation. This Monday was really nice and fun day when users of the Telegram, the most popular messenger application in Russia, started to add VPN/Socks settings to unblock telegram. Telegram users are good in IT and a lot of people keep telegram online and use it. What did Russian government (who keeps using Telegram messenger as well) started to do? Yes, They started to block VPN services that gives free socks5 proxies and VPNs for telegram users. A lot of such services were based on Amazon Cloud. So, at the evening RKN (aka Roskonadzor, advisory of telecom) started to add IPv4 networks in Russian blocklist (= blackhole). Example of networks that were added to Russian blocklist/blackhole Amazone <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T17:35:00+03:00">52.58.0.0/15</ipSubnet> <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T17:47:00+03:00">18.196.0.0/15</ipSubnet> <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T17:47:00+03:00">18.194.0.0/15</ipSubnet> <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T19:57:00+03:00">18.184.0.0/15</ipSubnet> <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T17:47:00+03:00">35.156.0.0/14</ipSubnet> GOOGLE CLOUD <ipSubnet ts="2018-04-16T20:21:00+03:00">35.192.0.0/12</ipSubnet> A lot of businesses were affected even some bank companies, processing and others who where using Amazon services. Amount of small companies affected is very large. Big companies? Apple services were affected too as I found. A lot of application use Amazon cloud. Just for info. Some time ago Russian gov wanted to integrate blackhole based on BGP (and that's bring up the question about whole internet stability). Because they break local internet time to time. You can track amount of IPs in blocklist monitoring at https://2018.schors.spb.ru/ A lot of news web sites write about this situation. Сonclusion. I don't find this situation suitable for any country. I know and fully understand that it's not easy to find consensus in discussions of such things. But I wish and I want community think about such issues. They should not happen in any country. We are as RIPE community are responsible for Internet stability and safety and making this Internet better. I want RIPE community offer how we should protect normal internet users of all countries from unintelligent, irrational and very bad behavior of local authorities. I think it's not good idea to assign any IPs for such authorities. Consensus should be found. -- Juri NTX Hosting

7 7