Your example is bad, California eg. requires mirrors and seatbelts and everything else seems to be fine. See West Coast Customs on MTV ;) If you bought a car before regulation you had to register it when it was introduced and kept it; much the same was the case in Europe Wikipedia says - This is the same as we did with legacy; legacy owners are registered and often even pay a RIR or convert space to PA but they kept it at the terms it was obtained for. For this you can blame MILNIC/IANA/few others, not RIPE/us. No matter how you phrase it, taking things from others they legally own and redistribute them is... stealing. Or Communism. I as legacy owner am not interested in either of this things, and for sure 99% of the others from very small to mega size are not either. I don't care much how you see it, or if you want to steal from me, but neither you nor RIPE or any other RIR will. Lastly, don't forget that most legacy owners = mega corps and gov, which can afford pretty good lawyers ;) -- 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 12:54, Bruno Carvalho wrote: 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. --- Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email (https://www.xrv.pt) (https://www.facebook.com/xervers/) (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 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 — Petru Bunea / CEO suport@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 wrote: I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks. Van: members-discuss Namens Bruno Carvalho Verzonden: maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 Aan: members-discuss@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 --- Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt (http://xrv.pt)) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email (https://www.xrv.pt/) (https://www.facebook.com/xervers/) (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 Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 Vastaanottaja: pdonner@znak.fi (mailto:pdonner@znak.fi); members-discuss@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@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/hans.govenius%40devne... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devne...) _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv....) _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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/suport%40bunea.eu (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu) _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv....)
