- members-discuss - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by Arash Naderpour 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

Hi, And how you can detect if an AS is hijacking a prefix? RPKI does not check if entire path is correct and the attacker can bypass it by adding the origin AS at the end of AS-PATH. BGPsec is there to address the BGP hijacking, but creating a black-list and some policies to list/delist ASNs just making things more complex (starting with who is going to manage the list) Regards, Arash From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> On Behalf Of Dominic Schallert Sent: Wednesday, 1 August 2018 7:59 PM To: members-discuss(a)ripe.net Subject: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking Dear colleagues, I’m sure some of you have read about this recent incident; https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 . Nowadays we’re talking about transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most fundamental parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken from a security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the current security-related struggles, their deployment currently competes somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes extreme problems require extrem solutions. Mit besten Grüßen Kind Regards Dominic Schallert, BA schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 <http://www.schallert.com> www.schallert.com | <mailto:office@schallert.com> office(a)schallert.com --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by Cedric R 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

Hello, I think it's not a bad idea but the real solution remain RPKI. If transit operator like HE or L3 start to reject INVALID RPKI and some riskly network start to sign theyr route (and it's pretty simple with RIR tools) we can clear a part of the problem quickly. I don't talk about reject unsigned route, but only invalid signed. Also AS blacklisting can be quickly spoofed. What append if someone use hijacked ASN behind it's legit ASN to announce hijacked prefix (not every filters drop that). Best Regards Cedric Rossius Le 01-08-18 à 11:59, Dominic Schallert a écrit : > Dear colleagues, > > I’m sure some of you have read about this recent incident; > https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 . Nowadays we’re talking about > transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most fundamental > parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken from a > security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the current > security-related struggles, their deployment currently competes > somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a > practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route > object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. > > So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like > RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes > are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons > feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for > realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted > ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 > days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a > statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt > those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. > > I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, > nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes > extreme problems require extrem solutions. > > Mit besten Grüßen > Kind Regards > > Dominic Schallert, BA > > > > > *schallert.com e.U.* | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria > FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch > Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 > > www.schallert.com <http://www.schallert.com> | office(a)schallert.com > <mailto:office@schallert.com> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/ml%40servperso.com

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by Dominic Schallert 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

Hi Dmitry, > The answer is simple. It will be centralized system and so: > - you will need to trust its system engineers > - any breaking of this system can cause Internet crash if many AS`es will use it > > So it is very bad idea on my opinion. That’s a very good point and probably the most problematic one also with existing lists such as Spamhaus EDROP. I'm thinking of a decentralized system run by a nonprofit/NGO or maybe even some sort of blockchain or DLT-based approach where multiple, independent parties are required to sign something - or in this case add entries to the list, in order to avoid misuse, censorship and a single point of failure. The contributing organizations could be RIRs, IXPs, Tier-1 ISPs and NGOs in different continents, countries and legislations, where atleast for example one-third of them need to flag an ASN before it gets added to the list. > What we need that all follow the rules: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/ <https://www.routingmanifesto.org/> Thanks for the link Kind Regards > On 01.08.2018 12:59, Dominic Schallert wrote: >> Dear colleagues, >> >> I’m sure some of you have read about this recent incident; https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 <https://bgpstream.com/event/144058> . Nowadays we’re talking about transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most fundamental parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken from a security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the current security-related struggles, their deployment currently competes somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. >> >> So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. >> >> I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes extreme problems require extrem solutions. >> >> Mit besten Grüßen >> Kind Regards >> >> Dominic Schallert, BA >> >> >> <Mail-Anhang.png> >> >> >> schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria >> >> FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch >> >> Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 >> >> <http://www.schallert.com/>www.schallert.com <http://www.schallert.com/> | <mailto:office@schallert.com>office(a)schallert.com <mailto:office@schallert.com> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> members-discuss mailing list >> members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> >> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss> >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/noc%40mega-net.ru <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/noc%40mega-net.ru> >

1 0

Re: [members-discuss] Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by NOC 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

Hi. Why ? The answer is simple. It will be centralized system and so: - you will need to trust its system engineers - any breaking of this system can cause Internet crash if many AS`es will use it So it is very bad idea on my opinion. What we need that all follow the rules: https://www.routingmanifesto.org/ С наилучшими пожеланиями :: With best regards, Дмитрий Николаев технический директор ООО "Меганет-2003" :: Dmitry Nikolaev CTO "Meganet-2003" LLC On 01.08.2018 12:59, Dominic Schallert wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > I’m sure some of you have read about this recent > incident; https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 . Nowadays we’re talking > about transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most > fundamental parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken > from a security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the > current security-related struggles, their deployment currently > competes somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a > practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route > object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. > > So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like > RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes > are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons > feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for > realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted > ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 > days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a > statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt > those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. > > I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, > nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes > extreme problems require extrem solutions. > > Mit besten Grüßen > Kind Regards > > Dominic Schallert, BA > > > > > *schallert.com e.U.* | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria > > FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch > > Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 > > www.schallert.com | office(a)schallert.com > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/noc%40mega-net.ru

1 0

Effective countermeasures against BGP hijacking
by Dominic Schallert 01 Aug '18

01 Aug '18

Dear colleagues, I’m sure some of you have read about this recent incident; https://bgpstream.com/event/144058 <https://bgpstream.com/event/144058> . Nowadays we’re talking about transport security, https-per-default, etc. but the most fundamental parts of the internet such as BGP, are basically broken from a security perspective. While RPKI/ROA/ROV could fix most of the current security-related struggles, their deployment currently competes somewhat with IPv6 - or even worse - and therefore won’t be a practical solution in the forseeable future. Strict IRRDB and route object filtering is complicated (or almost impossible) as well. So I’m wondering, why can't we just have an automated blacklist like RBL's for mailservers, where all AS'es detected for hijacking prefixes are automatically blacklisted, similiar to Team Cymru's fullbogons feed? The list combined with some scripting could then be used for realtime AS-path filtering at border routers. Delisting of blacklisted ASNs should happen only after a pre-defined amount of time (eg. 14 days) or after paying a fee to a charity/non-profit and providing a statement on the issue which is publicy released. The idea is to hurt those who can’t get their stuff - especially prefix filtering - together. I still remember the days where everyone complained about RBLs, nowadays almost every mailserver setup relies on them. Sometimes extreme problems require extrem solutions. Mit besten Grüßen Kind Regards Dominic Schallert, BA schallert.com e.U. | Hauptstraße 35b, 6800 Feldkirch, Austria FN: 440372g | UID: ATU66209211 | Gerichtsstand: Feldkirch Tel.: +43 680 146 1947 | Fax: +43 134 242 642 616 www.schallert.com <http://www.schallert.com/> | office(a)schallert.com <mailto:office@schallert.com>

1 0

RIPE forces us to pay the bill unfairly
by olena.dmytrenko＠bignet.ua 24 Jul '18

24 Jul '18

Hello everybody! We got a problem! We want to share it with you to find out your opinion on this matter. We are transferring our network to other company. The transfer is approved. As policy prescribed, you have to pay the annual fee. For today these are the third quartal and the forth. But RIPE forces us to pay the bill for the first quartal, however our LIR was opened later in the second one. ( in APRIL 2018). We would like to see and discuss the rules, where it is prescribed what to pay in such cases. Where we can read the regulation that you need to pay an annual fee for the quarters in which Lir did not even exist. Furthermore, we have 5 more LIRs on one company. Is it fare to be forced to pay all annual invoices on all Lirs, before the transfer one part of the network from 1 LIR? --Olena Dmytrenko

30 39

Re: [members-discuss] RIPE forces us to pay the bill unfairly
by Paul Thornton 10 Jul '18

10 Jul '18

On 10/07/2018 09:31, Martin Huněk wrote: > Dear Olena, > > stop looking for sympathy here, you get none. > > As you have written, you have 5 LIRs. It means that you probably have five times more IPv4 space that you deserved. As you might know, these addresses are reserved for late comers so they get at least some portion of the IPv4 space. Every thing else is just a tolerated abuse. Only unfair thing about this whole thing is that it is still tolerated (in the name of accurate database). So it is only fair that you had to pay for such "abuse" of (post-) last /8 space. These rules are there precisely because of that. > I am curious as to how the OP is able to transfer what is clearly non-legacy space out of this LIR when by their own admission, it hasn't been in existence for two years. Paul.

2 1

Re: [members-discuss] Request to update the SSA - Article 2.2, acceptance of documents
by Christian Kratzer 30 Jun '18

30 Jun '18

Hi, On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, John Fitzgerald wrote: > Since we have seen so many invalid certificates and signatures and even big CAs fail, we are voting for the good old paperwork method. I agree. I also cannot understand why this is such a big deal unless you want to create lots of LIR. For any valid business model setting up a lir is a one time thing where I do not worry about 300 EUR costs for paperwork. Greetings Christian -- Christian Kratzer CK Software GmbH Email: ck(a)cksoft.de Wildberger Weg 24/2 Phone: +49 7032 893 997 - 0 D-71126 Gaeufelden Fax: +49 7032 893 997 - 9 HRB 245288, Amtsgericht Stuttgart Mobile: +49 171 1947 843 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Kratzer Web: http://www.cksoft.de/

2 1

Request to update the SSA - Article 2.2, acceptance of documents
by Erik Bais 25 Jun '18

25 Jun '18

Dear members, I like to open a discussion to have the SSA updated into this century .. to allow for acceptance of the documents to be send in via the RIPE NCC Portal ( with SSO ) or send in by email after being signed, or the RIPE NCC to use a method of digital signature like the usage of DocuSign, Echosign or something similar. The acceptance of a digital signature has been allowed by EU law since December 1999, ( EU Directive 99/93/EG - http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:31999L0093 ) and implemented in Dutch law since 2003 (http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0015046/2003-05-21 ) We are currently in 2018 and the SSA still refers to a device that most of our children never heard of or have seen ..... named a fax machine… <snip> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-673 Article 2 – General 2.1 The RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement shall come into effect by means of an offer and an acceptance. 2.2 To enter into the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement, the following documents have to be sent to the RIPE NCC by post or fax: · One copy of the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement containing the handwritten signature of an authorised representative of the Member · A recent extract from the Commercial Trade Register or equivalent document proving the registration of the Member with the national authorities. Upon receipt of these documents by the RIPE NCC, the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement is considered to be concluded. The RIPE NCC shall not commence the provision of the RIPE NCC services until these documents have been received. Conclusion of the RIPE NCC Standard Service Agreement establishes a RIPE NCC membership. </snip> While most of the fax implementations these days, including the one at the RIPE NCC office, is a device that stores an image copy of a document on a server. Not many companies have a paper print fax anymore these days.. That document from those fax or multi-copier devices can then be printed by the local printer or stored digitally in a database attached to a LIR application as an attachment. Similar as if someone would scan the signed SSA and email the document .. However the current wording in the SSA doesn’t allow for that type of scenario .. and it should be updated to a more neutral wording to allow a better usage of technology. If we can sign for a mortgage application in The Netherlands using a digital signature, why can’t we apply for a new LIR with a digital signature. This will also allow for a much smoother new members to complete their application .. Using digital signatures will reduce the fees to DHL, speed up the complete on-boarding process and reduce the handling fees at the RIPE office. <sarcasm> For those that like to keep doing things, like we always did .. The city of Amsterdam is also in the process to dis-allow the usage of horse and carriage in the city. So if someone would like to take a ride by horse carriage to the postal office and use their fax machine there .. that is something that you cannot do for a long time anymore as well … https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/na-bierfiets-is-het-ook-einde-verhaal-… </sarcasm> And for countries that don’t allow the usage of digital signatures or members that don’t want to use the new digital signature system, there is always the option to request the paper SSA to be send via DHL and have it signed and returned. Similar as we are currently also allowing those options for invoices … Kind regards, Erik Bais

14 20

RIPE NCC and the geopolitical situation
by Sascha Luck [ml] 10 Jun '18

10 Jun '18

All, the recent discussion about moving the NCC and the relative political stability of countries in the service region has caused me to think about the RIPE NCC in the current political context. THere appears to be an incipient issue here: 1) Problem statement the current geopolitical situation in the RIPE service region has, unfortunately, greatly degraded in the recent past. There are territorial conflicts (Ukraine/Russia), there are outright civil wars (Syria, Afghanistan) and, perhaps closest to "home", the cold war is back between "The West" and Russia as well as Iran (both in the RIPE service region). The rhetoric in both the EU and NATO (both of which NL is a member of) is becoming increasingly belligerent and there is an increasing likelihood of this stance leading to unilateral sanctions against those seen as "enemies". Since "internet propaganda", "Russian Trolls", etc are now often taking the blame for every ill in Europe, I should be surprised if those didn't also include internet resources. I would not see it without the realm of the possible, that increasing political/legal pressure would be brought on the RIPE NCC to deny service and perhaps revoke resources allocated to these enemies-du-jour. 2) Possible outcomes - Sanctioned countries might take their ball and go elsewhere (another RIR?) - Sanctioned countries might take their resources and set up their own RIR, approved by IANA or, more likely, not. - They might refuse (or be prohibited from) cooperation with the original IANA/RIR/LIR system. - In a worst-case scenario this could lead to the same resources used by "opposing" RIRs and a fracturing of the internet. - In such a case, it is hard to imagine the ITU (as an UN body) *not* taking control of resource management to prevent such a fracture. 3) Mitigations - The only one I can think of is relocating the NCC to a country - if that exists- which is neutral and does not participate in these block fights (Switzerland?, Sweden?). As a question to the board: does the RIPE NCC have any contingency plans to mitigate this situation when it occurs? Kind Regards, Sascha Luck - resources

6 5

IP transfer (in)security
by Dana Konkin (Onwave) 17 May '18

17 May '18

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.

44 78

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

14 May '18

Well, use your email address and reset it :) On 05/14/2018 07:48 AM, Anas Tablieh wrote: > > unsubscribe link need a password !! > > *From:*Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 14:48 > *To:* Anas Tablieh <ATablieh(a)sierrawireless.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security > > 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> > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Daniel > Pearson > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 14:25 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@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… >

5 5

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

14 May '18

Hi there, Make sure the link you are clicking actually includes your email address. That's where the smarts come in, look at the last bit of the URL, does it look like the one below. So for yours it will be this: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/Adrian.Bolster%40pur… Try that should work for you. Most likely you are 185.79.217.61 who's currently trying to reset my password. Sorry that's the wrong link! On 05/14/2018 08:35 AM, Anas Tablieh wrote: > > Daniel > > You don’t need to be smart to find the unsubscribe link, but I said > many times IT DOESN’T WORK.. it need password , password can’t be > reset !!! > > *From:*Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 15:27 > *To:* Adrian Bolster <Adrian.Bolster(a)purebroadband.net>; Anas Tablieh > <ATablieh(a)sierrawireless.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security > > It seems most people don't look at the links and click the first > unsubscribe link they find, half the time not associated with their > email address. > > I get them too... I blame technology for dumbing things down so people > don't think. :) > > On 05/14/2018 08:24 AM, Adrian Bolster wrote: > > Go on then… who tried to unsubscribe me? > > *From:*members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces(a)ripe.net> > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *On Behalf Of *Daniel > Pearson > *Sent:* 14 May 2018 13:50 > *To:* Anas Tablieh <ATablieh(a)sierrawireless.com> > <mailto:ATablieh@sierrawireless.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security > > Well, use your email address and reset it :) > > On 05/14/2018 07:48 AM, Anas Tablieh wrote: > > unsubscribe link need a password !! > > *From:*Daniel Pearson <daniel(a)privatesystems.net> > <mailto:daniel@privatesystems.net> > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 14:48 > *To:* Anas Tablieh <ATablieh(a)sierrawireless.com> > <mailto:ATablieh@sierrawireless.com>; members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> > *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security > > 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> > <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> *On Behalf Of > *Daniel Pearson > *Sent:* lundi 14 mai 2018 14:25 > *To:* members-discuss(a)ripe.net > <mailto:members-discuss@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… >

5 5

unsubscribe pls
by Iwan Casander 14 May '18

14 May '18

4 3

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 03 May '18

03 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 03 May '18

03 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

Re: [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [GM] RIPE NCC Annual Report 2017 and Proposed RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2019
by Sergey Myasoedov 17 Apr '18

17 Apr '18

Dear Axel, Thank you for publishing the reports. It's very nice to put 7.5 MEur of opex as 'Internal' as mentioned on the page 7 of the Annual Report, but this amount is 1/3 of total opex. Can this amount be explained? -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov You wrote Wednesday, April 11, 2018, 4:08:43 PM: > Dear RIPE NCC members, > The following important documents are now online: > - RIPE NCC Annual Report 2017 > - RIPE NCC Financial Report 2017 > - RIPE NCC Charging Scheme 2019 > All three are supporting documents for the RIPE NCC General Meeting > (GM), which takes place from 16-18 May 2018. Members will vote to > approve the Financial Report and the Charging Scheme at the GM. > The full list of supporting documents is available at: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2018/supporting-d… > If you have any feedback, please email <agm(a)ripe.net>. > We ask all RIPE NCC members to register for the GM so they can vote on > these documents, as well as in the Executive Board elections that will > take place at the GM. Full remote participation is possible for those > who cannot attend the meeting in Marseille. > We previously announced that publication of these documents would take > place on 4 April. We apologise for the delay. > All information on the GM, including the draft agenda and how to > register to participate remotely, is included on the GM homepage: > https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2018/ > Best regards, > Axel Pawlik > Managing Director > RIPE NCC -- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

47 84