Hi Business has risks, I really don’t think RIPE should get involved into commercial side of transaction On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:04 Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua> wrote:

Hi All,

let me point it again, Escrow service for IP transfers is the most valuable service for LIRs we are waiting from RIPE NCC.

The only 100% secure Escrow agent for that deals can be ONLY the RIPE NCC.

09.05.18 14:54, Dana Konkin (Onwave) пише:

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.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing listmembers-discuss@ripe.nethttps://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss

Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/maxtul%40netassist.ua

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tech%40outsideheaven....

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

I think it is much less risky than arrange a RIPE meeting. Buyer transfer money to escrow. Escrow either release money to seller, or return it to buyer. That's all. If you still afraid, RIPE NCC can establish a branch company to isolate risks. 09.05.18 15:06, Lu Heng пише:

Hi

Business has risks, I really don’t think RIPE should get involved into commercial side of transaction 

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:04 Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua <mailto:maxtul@netassist.ua>> wrote:

Hi All,

let me point it again, Escrow service for IP transfers is the most valuable service for LIRs we are waiting from RIPE NCC.

The only 100% secure Escrow agent for that deals can be ONLY the RIPE NCC.

09.05.18 14:54, Dana Konkin (Onwave) пише:

...

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.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/maxtul%40netassist.ua

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tech%40outsideheaven....

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/netassist%40email.cz

I still think offering IP's for sale / transfer is the wrong process. If the LIR does not need the IPs so is then willing to sell them, instead they should hand back to RIPE. Why is it allowed for a public resource such as IP Addresses allowed to be used for large profits in such way. It annoys me. Hand them back to RIPE, so can be added out to a LIR who needs the addresses. It's all about greed and money. Regards Dave -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Max Tulyev Sent: 09 May 2018 15:29 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] IP transfer (in)security Hi Sergey, Yes, I think so. First, RIPE NCC work for it's members (I still hope so). Members needs in safe IP transfers. Second, only RIPE NCC staff decides either the transfer will be successful or not. For any other parties (escrows) it is unpredictable, and often not understandable at all. It can lead to mistakes, which can costs RIPE NCC members a lot of money and some time even a business. Third, YES, I want RIPE NCC to be responsible for money involved in transfers. Now if somehow transfer is reverted - that's only a buyer problem. Do you think it is really good? Now in case of any mistake which in fact costs hundreds of thousands euros, RIPE NCC put their hands in pockets and show the poker face. I do not think it is good and fair. Of course, I do not want RIPE NCC's escrow to be mandatory, but only a (good) option. If you don't want to show RIPE NCC staff your financial side of the deal - you are free to choose any other escrow, or do not use any escrow at all. 09.05.18 15:22, Sergey Myasoedov пише:

Hi Max,

...

Buyer transfer money to escrow. Escrow either release money to seller, or return it to buyer. That's all. If you still afraid, RIPE NCC can establish a branch company to isolate risks.

Do you really think this should be an RIR business?

-- Kind regards, Sergey Myasoedov

...

On 9 May 2018, at 12:18, Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua <mailto:maxtul@netassist.ua>> wrote:

I think it is much less risky than arrange a RIPE meeting.

Buyer transfer money to escrow. Escrow either release money to seller, or return it to buyer. That's all. If you still afraid, RIPE NCC can establish a branch company to isolate risks.

09.05.18 15:06, Lu Heng пише:

...

Hi

Business has risks, I really don’t think RIPE should get involved into commercial side of transaction

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:04 Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua <mailto:maxtul@netassist.ua>> wrote:

Hi All,

let me point it again, Escrow service for IP transfers is the most valuable service for LIRs we are waiting from RIPE NCC.

The only 100% secure Escrow agent for that deals can be ONLY the RIPE NCC.

09.05.18 14:54, Dana Konkin (Onwave) пише:

...

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.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/maxtul%40net assist.ua

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:  https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tech%40outsid eheaven.com

-- This transmission is intended solely for the addressee(s) shown above. It may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. Any review, dissemination or use of this transmission or its contents by persons other than the intended addressee(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify this office immediately and e-mail the original at the sender's address above by replying to this message and including the text of the transmission received.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/netassist%40e mail.cz

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:  https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/kaa%40net-art. cz

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/post%40smileinv est.bz

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dave%40it-communicati...

David Benwell suggested:

...

Why is it allowed for a public resource such as IP Addresses allowed to be used for large profits in such way. It annoys me. Hand them back to RIPE, so can be added out to a LIR who needs the addresses.

This sounds reasonable. Some of us aren't profit diggers, but rather motivated by the idea of working on a non-profit basis for the common good. Our cooperative is e.g. constructing fiber networks in scarcely populated rural areas where a market-oriented approach isn't feasible. Easying the procedures of getting IP addresses could by a positive kick for such actors. 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. Regards, Philip Donner -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> On Behalf Of David Benwell Sent: May 9, 2018 7:03 PM To: Max Tulyev <maxtul@netassist.ua>; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] IP transfer (in)security I still think offering IP's for sale / transfer is the wrong process. If the LIR does not need the IPs so is then willing to sell them, instead they should hand back to RIPE. Why is it allowed for a public resource such as IP Addresses allowed to be used for large profits in such way. It annoys me. Hand them back to RIPE, so can be added out to a LIR who needs the addresses. It's all about greed and money. Regards Dave

When a LIR is assigned address space for example a /19 they must allocate the address ranges in blocks of /24 if they have unused space for a period of 12 months then any remaining space is returned automatically. The LIR can apply for more space if required in the future but must prove they need them and will be used within the period of 12 months. An address block may only be allocated if it's going to be used within the next 3 months, if not you must not allocate the block from your address space. A /24 must be 80% used before allocating a second block -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of REG ID: pl.skonet Sent: 14 May 2018 08:34 To: pdonner@znak.fi; members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: 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 https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dave%40it-communicati...

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) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [1] [2] [3] 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@ripe.net> Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 Vastaanottaja: pdonner@znak.fi; 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 https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devne... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv....

Links: ------ [1] https://www.xrv.pt [2] https://www.facebook.com/xervers/ [3] https://twitter.com/xervers

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 <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@ripe.net> Namens Bruno Carvalho Verzonden: maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 Aan: 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) | +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 <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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%40devnet.fi> _______________________________________________ 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.pt>_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

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 [9] [7] [8] 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 [1] - 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@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

--

PETRU BUNEA / CEO suport@bunea.eu / +40752481282 [2] Bunea TELECOM / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu [3] / +40745495495 [4]

On 14 May 2018, at 11:20, Janarthanan Sundaram <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@ripe.net> NAMENS Bruno Carvalho VERZONDEN: maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 AAN: 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 [5]) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email

[6] [7] [8]

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@ripe.net> Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 Vastaanottaja: pdonner@znak.fi; 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 https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devne... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list 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@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@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv.... Links: ------ [1] https://ip6.im/ [2] tel:+40752481282 [3] http://www.bunea.eu/ [4] tel:+40745495495 [5] http://xrv.pt [6] https://www.xrv.pt/ [7] https://www.facebook.com/xervers/ [8] https://twitter.com/xervers [9] https://www.xrv.pt

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@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@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@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. ---

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 <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@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@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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

--- <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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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%40devnet.fi> _______________________________________________ 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.pt>

---

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.pt>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list 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@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

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@bunea.eu> Cc: 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@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 — [cid:image001.jpg@01D3EB80.7B0E6AC0] 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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl@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@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. --- [XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> On 2018-05-14 12:46, William wrote: These are legacy. They are not RIR business. No RIR can reclaim them (and reclaim is plainly wrong, they never owned them, this is pre-RIR space), they are private property. Taking them is theft and nothing else, no matter how you phrase it. -- William Weber Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia https://ip6.im<https://ip6.im/> - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have. On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27, Bunea TELECOM <suport@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@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@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- <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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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

You again confuse things here (or ignore them on purpose). Legacy IPs are *not* in LIR accounts in most cases and mostly not RIPE. You can talk all you want, but this matter is not a choice of RIPE, APNIC or all RIRs together in any way - it ends with a lawsuit based on US law against ICANN/IANA by the property owners, and nowhere else. Unless someone magically puts up the money to buy all legacy at market rates + some and wants to give it to the RIRs for free, there is no chance in hell they will go back to any pool. -- 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 13:35, Adrian Bolster wrote: I wholeheartedly agree, it’s not in the best interests of the internet community as a whole to continue to allow huge amounts of address space to remain unused to their full potential. On 14 May 2018, at 12:40, David Benwell wrote: 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 (mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net)] On Behalf Of William Sent: 14 May 2018 12:32 To: Bunea TELECOM Cc: members-discuss@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 (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 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@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 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 (https://lv.linkedin.com/in/allxll) E-mail: alxl@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. --- 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 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....) ------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/alxl%40telenet.lv (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv) _______________________________________________ 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/adrian.bolster%40sure... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/adrian.bolster%40sure...)

While I am not in favor of "disowning any property", I do think the legacy holders should at least be made to pay for the services they use, like everyone else. Stop providing services to freeloaders.

They do. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the current billing procedure, https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/billing-procedure-an... 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@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Floris Bos Sent: 14 May 2018 13:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security On 05/14/2018 01:51 PM, William wrote: Legacy IPs are *not* in LIR accounts in most cases and mostly not RIPE. Yet, the RIRs do are providing services to them (like rDNS). While I am not in favor of "disowning any property", I do think the legacy holders should at least be made to pay for the services they use, like everyone else. Stop providing services to freeloaders. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos

Hi Floris, I'm afraid what you are suggesting is impossible, there are no such ranges that exist as both RIR space and legacy space. On Mon, 14 May 2018, 14:47 Floris Bos, <bos@je-eigen-domein.nl> wrote:

On 05/14/2018 02:16 PM, Dominik Nowacki wrote:

...

While I am not in favor of "disowning any property", I do think the legacy holders should at least be made to pay for the services they use, like everyone else.

...

Stop providing services to freeloaders.

They do. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the current billing procedure, https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/billing-procedure-an...

Only if they become LIR member.

There are also legacy holders that aren't LIR members though. Yet we still provide technical services for them, if their IP range falls under the larger range RIPE is responsible for.

Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/t.armstrong%40nerdali...

Hello, I shall reply because I am being misquoted. I did not say my employer would drop membership due to _any_ price increases. Only that within the context of if the charging model were to change to be based upon size of IPv4 allocation, then in that scenario it makes financial sense to spin off a 2nd LIR to separate registration of Legacy and non-Legacy space, then drop membership for the Legacy owner. We would then retain membership under the lower-cost 2nd LIR. But again, this only applies to the charging models being proposed in the discussion at that time, and is not how I expect our organisation to behave under the current models. Now, allow me to remove my employee-hat: I see no problem with paying for services based on fair share of usage. But your example of reverse DNS as a yardstick for measuring fair share is a poor one. The burden on RIPE to maintain such records does not change with size of address space. In the case of our inetnum below, there would only be one set of records under 151.in-addr.arpa pointing to who to query for anything under 133.151.in-addr.arpa. If anything, the burden on RIPE is higher for members with fragmented address space, who will require more DNS records so that each fragment is pointing to the correct DNS servers. Clearly it wouldn't make sense to propose charging based on reverse DNS usage, even partially, and this would disproportionately affect newer members who did not get the luxury of having their entire allocation as a single block like those with older or Legacy allocations. And really, in today's age of computing power and automation, even if you happen to have hundreds of small allocations, the difference between RIPE hosting 5 or 500 pointers to the next-level DNS servers is small (random numbers picked out of a hat). If we want to talk fair share of usage, there are many other factors to consider, starting with other types of resources maintained such as IPv6 allocations or AS numbers, and how they are maintained. Regards, Muntasir -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Floris Bos Sent: 15 May 2018 12:57 Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security On 05/15/2018 09:49 AM, Tim Armstrong wrote:

I'm afraid what you are suggesting is impossible, there are no such ranges that exist as both RIR space and legacy space.

For the purpose of services like reverse DNS there are. E.g. let's take legacy holder London Borough of Newham as an example, that in the 2016 discussion mentioned that if any price increases would apply to them they would drop their membership. == inetnum: 151.133.0.0 - 151.133.255.255 netname: LBNEWHAM status: LEGACY == Yes, that's legacy space all right. And you are right that is their property, and all that, and yes, they can take their ball home. But who is responsible for providing services to that range? Who does reverse DNS for everything that starts with 151.x.x.x? == $ host -t SOA 151.in-addr.arpa 151.in-addr.arpa has SOA record pri.authdns.ripe.net. dns.ripe.net. 1526370342 3600 600 864000 3600 == Oh, we do... And that's the part I disagree with. It's fine with me if you want to claim independence, but then you should not be expecting to continue to receive services you are not willing to pay your fair share for. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos ________________________________ NOTE: This communication is sent for and on behalf of the London Borough of Newham. However the views expressed within it are not necessarily the views or policies of the Council. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this communication and any attachments is forbidden. This communication and any attachments are intended for the addressee only and may be confidential. If this has come to you in error you should immediately permanently destroy it. You should take no action based on it or copy or show it to anyone and telephone the Council immediately with any issues on 020 8430 2000 or any other number provided in the communication. Please note that electronic communication is not considered a secure medium for sending information and therefore maybe at risk. We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when using this form of communication with us. Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free and should run current anti-virus software. Please note that email may be monitored and checked to safeguard the council network from viruses, hoax messages or abuse of the Council's systems. Action may be taken against any malicious and deliberate attempts to infect the council network. The information contained in this email maybe subject to public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure the confidentiality of this email and your reply cannot be guaranteed.

I see no problem with paying for services based on fair share of usage. But your example of reverse DNS as a yardstick for measuring fair share is a poor one. The burden on RIPE to maintain such records does not change with size of address space. If we calculate it down to just legacy users that do not pay a LIR account or PI fees the operating costs are double/triple digit €/year *at most*, i'd commit just out of spite to pay them for some years for everyone. So on any price increase that you know a loophole for to avoid. Well, obviously he/others/i do? I do not see this as any problem, it is nothing forbidden or 'wrong'. Hell, if RIPE charges me per size for legacy i can pay it as PI, if they do it for PI or increase PI fees insanely... it's still mine, it might end up with APNIC or "DB fixed" unchangeable but free/lower cost (and everyone else that has no choice to move will be punished). Well, then we should plug said holes. Sure? You seem to understand how the process works within RIPE, but this will ultimately just end as above, our loophole is not really fixable (i think we now all know "taking legacy IPs away" is theft de-jure, right?). --William WeberConsulting, 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 Wed, May 16, 2018 at 19:27, Floris Bos wrote:On 05/16/2018 02:04 PM, Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk (mailto:Muntasir.Ali@newham.gov.uk) wrote: I shall reply because I am being misquoted. I did not say my employer would drop membership due to _any_ price increases. Only that within the context of if the charging model were to change to be based upon size of IPv4 allocation, then in that scenario it makes financial sense to spin off a 2nd LIR to separate registration of Legacy and non-Legacy space, then drop membership for the Legacy owner.

So on any price increase that you know a loophole for to avoid. Well, then we should plug said holes. We would then retain membership under the lower-cost 2nd LIR. But again, this only applies to the charging models being proposed in the discussion at that time, and is not how I expect our organisation to behave under the current models. Yes, since the board seems unwilling to put up any proposal to change current model up to vote, you are indeed pretty safe for now. Only thing us folks that are not satisfied with the current situation can do is vote against the 2019 charging scheme today. But no alternative to vote on instead is provided... Oh well, could try to get the 2% of members necessary to put a voting point to the agenda (with or without the board's blessing) next year. Now, allow me to remove my employee-hat: I see no problem with paying for services based on fair share of usage. But your example of reverse DNS as a yardstick for measuring fair share is a poor one. The burden on RIPE to maintain such records does not change with size of address space. There is no burden to create and update records when you have automated systems. And would argue that your /16 causes more lookups, than the /22 we have. I also think it's kinda interesting to have this conversation with a city council. Don't you set the rate of council tax on factors like property value as well? Yours sincerely, Floris Bos

Correct. Either you are LIR/convert it to PA (which is a bad idea as you give up certain rights in practice, even if all say it is not the case), then you pay via LIR fees or you hold it as (Nx) PI objects and pay 50€ ea per year which is plenty for RDNS and Route objects (not even DB as PI is only a single entry anyway). If you do not do either, your entry is just a static single DB entry and this surely is not something you want to bill, or the absurdity levels rise to insanity here. The waived setup fee is fair as there is no /22 provided either, so i see no reason to pay full - this was also an incentive to get legacy owners to sign up for RIPE. --William WeberConsulting, 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 14:20, Dominik Nowacki wrote:

While I am not in favor of "disowning any property", I do think the legacy holders should at least be made to pay for the services they use, like everyone else. Stop providing services to freeloaders. They do. I invite you to familiarise yourself with the current billing procedure, https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/billing-procedure-an... (https://www.ripe.net/participate/member-support/payment/billing-procedure-an...) 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 On Behalf Of Floris Bos Sent: 14 May 2018 13:02 To: members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security On 05/14/2018 01:51 PM, William wrote: Legacy IPs are *not* in LIR accounts in most cases and mostly not RIPE. Yet, the RIRs do are providing services to them (like rDNS).

While I am not in favor of "disowning any property", I do think the legacy holders should at least be made to pay for the services they use, like everyone else. Stop providing services to freeloaders. Yours sincerely, Floris Bos

PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME Üdvözlettel: Szervernet Kft. +36(1)349-75-45 info@szervernet.hu 1132 Budapest, Victor Hugo u. 18-22. 5 emelet 2018. 05. 14. 15:09 keltezéssel, Floris Bos írta:

On 05/14/2018 02:37 PM, William wrote:

...

Correct.

Either you are LIR/convert it to PA (which is a bad idea as you give up certain rights in practice, even if all say it is not the case), then you pay via LIR fees or you hold it as (Nx) PI objects and pay 50€ ea per year which is plenty for RDNS and Route objects (not even DB as PI is only a single entry anyway).

If you do not do either, your entry is just a static single DB entry and this surely is not something you want to bill, or the absurdity levels rise to insanity here.

Don't they get rDNS services as well, and not just the DB entry? And yes, I do believe things like that should be billable.

I think the idea that other people should pay for the services provided is absurd instead. Like the "if you increase fees, we will drop LIR membership and go back to freeloading like we did before" stance legacy holders have expressed here before: https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/2016-September/00239...

Yours sincerely,

Floris Bos

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/info%40szervernet.hu

Traditionally such programs have resulted in the government paying for the guns or whatever they wanted back. It is still stealing as you have no choice of not selling and as you have no fair way to negotiate with a government that can just "crush" you. The US gov also once tried this - see Machine Gun Amnesty - where it was decided this was way too complex, possibly not very legal and impossible so practically all guns have been declared legacy & legal if registered until a specific date. This is the same that was done for legacy IPs in parts. Your examples are overall bad, as both rule something illegal for *everyone* (and that by physical danger from it, which IPs have clearly not) and orders destruction or *government usage* - not just take from some private owners (us) and give it to other businesses(!) for their own profit(!) simply because we owned them under contracts they cannot change. In the drug example this would be confiscating drugs in New York, give them to private businesses in LA for a cheap price to sell them to customers at markup they keep, which is absurd. -- 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 13:56, Storch Matei wrote: William, I want to state from the start that I am not a supporter of legacy resources being reclaimed by Iana or any RIR. But, I want to ask you something. Let’s take the example of guns in the US. At this moment it is perfectly legal to buy a gun (from Walmart even) without too much hassle. But let’s say a gun control law gets passed that states you have to return all but one gun you ever bought. Would you consider this theft as well? Maybe you don’t consider this a good example. Let’s take the example of a controlled substance. 20 years ago it wasn’t controlled, and anyone could get it and use it with no regulation. But after a while it’s considered a controlled substance and the use of it without justification/strict regulation is not allowed anymore, any quantity owned and not justified must be returned/destroyed. This would also be theft in your opinion? What I am trying to say is that changes happen everyday in this world, what was legal or unregulated x years ago, can become illegal or regulated. I think same thing can apply to legacy Ipv4 resources, if this is what is wanted/considered necessary. Regards, Matei Storch [F]: General Manager [M]: +40728.555.004 [E]: matei@profisol.ro (mailto:matei@profisol.ro) [C]: Profisol Telecom From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net)] On Behalf Of William Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 14:51 To: Adrian Bolster Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net (mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net) Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security You again confuse things here (or ignore them on purpose). Legacy IPs are *not* in LIR accounts in most cases and mostly not RIPE. You can talk all you want, but this matter is not a choice of RIPE, APNIC or all RIRs together in any way - it ends with a lawsuit based on US law against ICANN/IANA by the property owners, and nowhere else. Unless someone magically puts up the money to buy all legacy at market rates + some and wants to give it to the RIRs for free, there is no chance in hell they will go back to any pool. -- 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 13:35, Adrian Bolster wrote: I wholeheartedly agree, it’s not in the best interests of the internet community as a whole to continue to allow huge amounts of address space to remain unused to their full potential. On 14 May 2018, at 12:40, David Benwell wrote: 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 (mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net)] On Behalf Of William Sent: 14 May 2018 12:32 To: Bunea TELECOM Cc: members-discuss@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 (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 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@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 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 (https://lv.linkedin.com/in/allxll) E-mail: alxl@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. --- 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 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....) ------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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/alxl%40telenet.lv (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv) _______________________________________________ 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/adrian.bolster%40sure... (https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/adrian.bolster%40sure...)

PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME FROM THIS DISCUSSION Thank you Richard Quick Space Data Centres Limited ✆ - 0115 975 8285

On 14 May 2018, at 12:52, Thomas A. Bibb <hello@thomasbibb.co.uk> wrote:

I agree - this is partly to blame for why we’re in the situation we’re in.

Tom

...

On 14 May 2018, at 12:47, Adrian Bolster <Adrian.Bolster@purebroadband.net <mailto:Adrian.Bolster@purebroadband.net>> wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree, it’s not in the best interests of the internet community as a whole to continue to allow huge amounts of address space to remain unused to their full potential.

On 14 May 2018, at 12:40, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> wrote:

...

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 <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of William Sent: 14 May 2018 12:32 To: Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@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 <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@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 —

<image001.jpg>

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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl@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 <https://lv.linkedin.com/in/allxll> E-mail: alxl@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. ---

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 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@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@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@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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

--- <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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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%40devnet.fi> _______________________________________________ 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.pt> _______________________________________________ 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.pt>

_______________________________________________ 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/alxl%40telenet.lv <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv> _______________________________________________ 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/adrian.bolster%40sure... <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/adrian.bolster%40surebroadband.net> <image001.jpg>_______________________________________________ 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/hello%40thomasbibb.co... <https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hello%40thomasbibb.co.uk>

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/richard.quick%40space...

Hi there, Please unsubscribe yourself using the links at the bottom of this email. You are part of a mailing list, not a discussion. Thanks! On 05/14/2018 06:57 AM, Richard Quick wrote:

PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME FROM THIS DISCUSSION

Thank you

Richard Quick Space Data Centres Limited ✆ - 0115 975 8285

...

On 14 May 2018, at 12:52, Thomas A. Bibb <hello@thomasbibb.co.uk <mailto:hello@thomasbibb.co.uk>> wrote:

I agree - this is partly to blame for why we’re in the situation we’re in.

Tom

...

On 14 May 2018, at 12:47, Adrian Bolster <Adrian.Bolster@purebroadband.net <mailto:Adrian.Bolster@purebroadband.net>> wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree, it’s not in the best interests of the internet community as a whole to continue to allow huge amounts of address space to remain unused to their full potential.

On 14 May 2018, at 12:40, David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk <mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>> wrote:

...

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@bunea.eu <mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> *Cc:*members-discuss@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 <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@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 —

<image001.jpg>

*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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl@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@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. --- XRV

Bruno Carvalho (CEOxrv.pt <http://xrv.pt/>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Visit our website <https://www.xrv.pt/> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>Twitter <https://twitter.com/xervers>

On 2018-05-14 12:46, William wrote:

These are legacy. They are not RIR business. No RIR can reclaim them (and reclaim is plainly wrong, they never owned them, this is pre-RIR space), they are private property. Taking them is theft and nothing else, no matter how you phrase it. -- William Weber Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia https://ip6.im <https://ip6.im/>- No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27, Bunea TELECOM <suport@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@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@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> *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

--- <blocked.gif>

Bruno Carvalho (CEOxrv.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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: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 Unsubscribe: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 Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/adrian.bolster%40sure... <image001.jpg>_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hello%40thomasbibb.co...

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/richard.quick%40space...

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...

Haha, I second this motion. Tom -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Simon Lockhart Sent: 14 May 2018 14:57 To: Daniel Pearson <daniel@privatesystems.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:24:31AM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:

Please unsubscribe yourself using the links at the bottom of this email. You are part of a mailing list, not a discussion.

How about everyone who sends "Please remove me from this list" has to return a /24 of IPv4 space to RIPE. Solve two problems at once? :) Simon _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/tom%40portal-comms.co... ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Claranet. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.claranet.co.uk ________________________________________________________________________

On 14 May 2018, at 14:56, Simon Lockhart <simon@slimey.org> wrote:

On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:24:31AM -0500, Daniel Pearson wrote:

...

Please unsubscribe yourself using the links at the bottom of this email. You are part of a mailing list, not a discussion.

How about everyone who sends "Please remove me from this list" has to return a /24 of IPv4 space to RIPE. Solve two problems at once? :)

+1 - do we have enough votes to carry yet?

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 02:56:44PM +0100, Simon Lockhart wrote:

How about everyone who sends "Please remove me from this list" has to return a /24 of IPv4 space to RIPE. Solve two problems at once? :)

Should also apply to those who subscribe ticket systems. Each ticket number = one /24. sncr, Sascha

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@bunea.eu> *Cc:* 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@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

—

*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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl@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@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.

---

XRV

Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt <http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Visit our website <https://www.xrv.pt/> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>Twitter <https://twitter.com/xervers>

On 2018-05-14 12:46, William wrote:

These are legacy. They are not RIR business.

No RIR can reclaim them (and reclaim is plainly wrong, they never owned them, this is pre-RIR space), they are private property.

Taking them is theft and nothing else, no matter how you phrase it.

--

William Weber

Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia

https://ip6.im <https://ip6.im/> - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27, Bunea TELECOM <suport@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@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@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> *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

---

<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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.s...

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@bunea.eu> *Cc:* 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@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

—

*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 14:16, Alex Lobachov <alxl@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@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.

---

XRV

Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt <http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email

Visit our website <https://www.xrv.pt/> Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>Twitter <https://twitter.com/xervers>

On 2018-05-14 12:46, William wrote:

These are legacy. They are not RIR business.

No RIR can reclaim them (and reclaim is plainly wrong, they never owned them, this is pre-RIR space), they are private property.

Taking them is theft and nothing else, no matter how you phrase it.

--

William Weber

Consulting, Security & Management - Tel-Aviv, Israel / Rijeka, Croatia

https://ip6.im <https://ip6.im/> - No RIPE LIR? Still read this email for some reason? Grab a /40 *free* IPv6 space for BGP usage. Or just get it anyway, can't hurt to have.

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27, Bunea TELECOM <suport@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@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@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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> *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

---

<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@ripe.net <mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/alxl%40telenet.lv

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@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@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe:https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/peter%40fiberdirekt.s...

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/daniel%40privatesyste...

I support William here. RIPE contracts are not ‘laws’ so this does not apply. The legacy holders did not sign any contract with any RIR to have them assigned as such it’s not possible for any RIR to forcibly reclaim them. Simple as that. I propose we all focus on implementing IPv6. 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@ripe.net> On Behalf Of Bruno Carvalho Sent: 14 May 2018 12:04 To: 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) | +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@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:image004.jpg@01D3EB7D.1C69A000] 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 <j.sundaram@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> On 2018-05-14 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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/bruno.carvalho%40xrv....

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@bunea.eu> Cc: 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@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@01D3EB81.4A1958C0] 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 <j.sundaram@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> On 2018-05-14 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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

Me also please Владимир Ѓуровски Оддел за ИТ и ТК технологии ЕВН Електродистрибуција ДООЕЛ ул. „11 Октомври“ бр. 9, 1000 Скопје T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Користете ја енергијата разумно: помислете на животната средина пред да ја испечатите оваа електронска порака. Vladimir Gjurovski IT and TK technology Department EVN Elektrodistribucija DOOEL ul. „11 Oktomvri“ no. 9, 1000 Skopje T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Use energy wisely: Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Jeffery Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:46 PM To: David Benwell; William; Bunea TELECOM Cc: 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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of David Benwell <dave@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@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@bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@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@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@01D3EB8C.98F61810] 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 <j.sundaram@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> On 2018-05-14 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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu Напомена: Оваа порака и сите прилози што ги содржи се доверливи, заштитени и наменети само за испраќачот. Секое објавување, препраќање или користење на податоците е строго забрането за лицата на кои не им е наменета. Доколку ја имате добиено пораката по грешка, Ве молиме контактирајте го испраќачот и избришете ја. Испраќачот не превзема одговорност за несоодветно или нецелосно пренесување на информациите содржани во оваа комуникација, ниту пак за какво било задоцнување или настанати оштетувања како резултат на прием. Confidentiality Note: This message and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any publication,transmission or other use of the information by a person or entity other than the intended addressee is prohibited. If you receive this in error please contact the sender and delete the material. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions as a result of the transmission.

Folks, please remove my email from this list! Thanks! On Mon, May 14, 2018, 15:38 Office MEGs <office@megsolutions.com> wrote:

Me too please.

Thank you!

*From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] *On Behalf Of *Gjurovski Vladimir *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 2:05 PM *To:* 'John Jeffery' <johnjeffery@e-wire.co.uk>; David Benwell < dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>; William <william@william.si>; Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> *Cc:* members-discuss@ripe.net *Subject:* Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security

Me also please

Владимир Ѓуровски

Оддел за ИТ и ТК технологии

ЕВН Електродистрибуција ДООЕЛ

ул. „11 Октомври“ бр. 9, 1000 Скопје

T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232

M: +389 72 934 232

vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk

www.evn.mk

*Користете ја енергијата разумно: помислете на животната средина пред да ја испечатите оваа електронска порака.*

Vladimir Gjurovski

IT and TK technology Department

EVN Elektrodistribucija DOOEL

ul. „11 Oktomvri“ no. 9, 1000 Skopje

T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232

M: +389 72 934 232

vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk

www.evn.mk

*Use energy wisely: Please consider the environment before you print this email.*

*From:* members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *John Jeffery *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 1:46 PM *To:* David Benwell; William; Bunea TELECOM *Cc:* 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@ripe.net> on behalf of David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> *Sent:* Monday, May 14, 2018 12:44:26 PM *To:* William; Bunea TELECOM *Cc:* 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 <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] *On Behalf Of *William *Sent:* 14 May 2018 11:47 *To:* Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> *Cc:* 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 - 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@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

—

*Petru Bunea* / CEO suport@bunea.eu / +40752481282

*Bunea TELECOM* / DATACENTER / APP DEVELOPMENT http://www.bunea.eu / +40745495495

On 14 May 2018, at 11:20, Janarthanan Sundaram <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@ripe.net> *Namens *Bruno Carvalho *Verzonden:* maandag 14 mei 2018 10:11 *Aan:* 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: 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 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@ripe.net> Puolesta REG ID: pl.skonet Lähetetty: maanantai 14. toukokuuta 2018 10.34 Vastaanottaja: pdonner@znak.fi; 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 https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hans.govenius%40devne... _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list 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@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

Напомена: Оваа порака и сите прилози што ги содржи се доверливи, заштитени и наменети само за испраќачот. Секое објавување, препраќање или користење на податоците е строго забрането за лицата на кои не им е наменета. Доколку ја имате добиено пораката по грешка, Ве молиме контактирајте го испраќачот и избришете ја. Испраќачот не превзема одговорност за несоодветно или нецелосно пренесување на информациите содржани во оваа комуникација, ниту пак за какво било задоцнување или настанати оштетувања како резултат на прием.

Confidentiality Note: This message and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any publication,transmission or other use of the information by a person or entity other than the intended addressee is prohibited. If you receive this in error please contact the sender and delete the material. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions as a result of the transmission.

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ion.rebeja%40gmail.co...

Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/<https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ion.rebeja%40gmail.com> With kind regards Abel Wisman Head IT Kanta Enterprises 020 8842 2011 Head IT Faiview Hotels 014 3853 3012 DDI 020 3515 0015 / Mob 078 1595 4286 General Support 0330 445 445 1 Maitre’d specific support 033 0445 445 4 http://support.a3le.com<http://support.a3le.com/> support ticket system; your first step! From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Ion Rebeja Sent: 14 May 2018 14:05 To: Office MEGs <office@megsolutions.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security Folks, please remove my email from this list! Thanks! On Mon, May 14, 2018, 15:38 Office MEGs <office@megsolutions.com<mailto:office@megsolutions.com>> wrote: Me too please. Thank you! From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Gjurovski Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:05 PM To: 'John Jeffery' <johnjeffery@e-wire.co.uk<mailto:johnjeffery@e-wire.co.uk>>; David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>>; William <william@william.si<mailto:william@william.si>>; Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security Me also please Владимир Ѓуровски Оддел за ИТ и ТК технологии ЕВН Електродистрибуција ДООЕЛ ул. „11 Октомври“ бр. 9, 1000 Скопје T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Користете ја енергијата разумно: помислете на животната средина пред да ја испечатите оваа електронска порака. Vladimir Gjurovski IT and TK technology Department EVN Elektrodistribucija DOOEL ul. „11 Oktomvri“ no. 9, 1000 Skopje T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Use energy wisely: Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Jeffery Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:46 PM To: David Benwell; William; Bunea TELECOM Cc: members-discuss@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of David Benwell <dave@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@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@bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@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@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@01D3EB8E.9701FE50] 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 <j.sundaram@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [XRV] Bruno Carvalho (CEO xrv.pt<http://xrv.pt>) | +351 300 404 316 P Please consider the environment before printing this email [Visit our website]<https://www.xrv.pt/> [Facebook]<https://www.facebook.com/xervers/>[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/xervers> On 2018-05-14 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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu Напомена: Оваа порака и сите прилози што ги содржи се доверливи, заштитени и наменети само за испраќачот. Секое објавување, препраќање или користење на податоците е строго забрането за лицата на кои не им е наменета. Доколку ја имате добиено пораката по грешка, Ве молиме контактирајте го испраќачот и избришете ја. Испраќачот не превзема одговорност за несоодветно или нецелосно пренесување на информациите содржани во оваа комуникација, ниту пак за какво било задоцнување или настанати оштетувања како резултат на прием. Confidentiality Note: This message and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any publication,transmission or other use of the information by a person or entity other than the intended addressee is prohibited. If you receive this in error please contact the sender and delete the material. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions as a result of the transmission. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ion.rebeja%40gmail.co...

You can give me control of your computer and I will unsubscribe you from this mailing list) Капсалов Ярослав yk@sistele.com Компания «СИС Телеком» +7 (495) 825-26-27 пр-т Андропова, дом 22, г. Москва, 115533 (БЦ "Нагатинский") http://www.sistele.com/ From: members-discuss <members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Ion Rebeja <ion.rebeja@gmail.com> Date: Monday, 14 May 2018 at 16:05 To: Office MEGs <office@megsolutions.com> Cc: "members-discuss@ripe.net" <members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security Folks, please remove my email from this list! Thanks! On Mon, May 14, 2018, 15:38 Office MEGs <office@megsolutions.com<mailto:office@megsolutions.com>> wrote: Me too please. Thank you! From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>] On Behalf Of Gjurovski Vladimir Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 2:05 PM To: 'John Jeffery' <johnjeffery@e-wire.co.uk<mailto:johnjeffery@e-wire.co.uk>>; David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk<mailto:dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>>; William <william@william.si<mailto:william@william.si>>; Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security Me also please Владимир Ѓуровски Оддел за ИТ и ТК технологии ЕВН Електродистрибуција ДООЕЛ ул. „11 Октомври“ бр. 9, 1000 Скопје T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Користете ја енергијата разумно: помислете на животната средина пред да ја испечатите оваа електронска порака. Vladimir Gjurovski IT and TK technology Department EVN Elektrodistribucija DOOEL ul. „11 Oktomvri“ no. 9, 1000 Skopje T: +389 2 3205 300 – 44232 M: +389 72 934 232 vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk<mailto:vladimir.gjurovski@evn.mk> www.evn.mk<http://www.evn.mk> Use energy wisely: Please consider the environment before you print this email. From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of John Jeffery Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 1:46 PM To: David Benwell; William; Bunea TELECOM Cc: members-discuss@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> on behalf of David Benwell <dave@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@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@bunea.eu<mailto:suport@bunea.eu>> Cc: members-discuss@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@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@01D3EB8E.9701FE50] 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 <j.sundaram@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu Напомена: Оваа порака и сите прилози што ги содржи се доверливи, заштитени и наменети само за испраќачот. Секое објавување, препраќање или користење на податоците е строго забрането за лицата на кои не им е наменета. Доколку ја имате добиено пораката по грешка, Ве молиме контактирајте го испраќачот и избришете ја. Испраќачот не превзема одговорност за несоодветно или нецелосно пренесување на информациите содржани во оваа комуникација, ниту пак за какво било задоцнување или настанати оштетувања како резултат на прием. Confidentiality Note: This message and any attached files are confidential and intended solely for the addressee. Any publication,transmission or other use of the information by a person or entity other than the intended addressee is prohibited. If you receive this in error please contact the sender and delete the material. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions as a result of the transmission. _______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss@ripe.net> https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/ion.rebeja%40gmail.co...

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@ripe.net> On Behalf Of John Jeffery Sent: 14 May 2018 12:46 To: David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk>; William <william@william.si>; Bunea TELECOM <suport@bunea.eu> Cc: 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@ripe.net> on behalf of David Benwell <dave@it-communicationsltd.co.uk> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 12:44:26 PM To: William; Bunea TELECOM Cc: 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@bunea.eu> Cc: 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@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@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@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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 --- [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@ripe.net<mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net>> 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: 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 Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/suport%40bunea.eu

On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:20:35AM +0000, Janarthanan Sundaram wrote:

I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.

Why? This has been discussed many times, there is little space in unused blocks and if it was possible to liberate it (unlikely without a legal fight) it would probably run out in less time than it took to get it. This is a waste of time better spent rolling out v6, in the time spent arguing over v4 this could have been done already. At this point the only answer is roll out v6 or get off the net as you're holding up progress for everyone else. regards brandon

Thanks all. I read with interest your thoughts related to the issues related businesses juggling IPv4 blocks around. And am of the view that if it can be sold then it isn't needed and should go back into the RIR 'pool' for other growing LIRs that need to connect their owned or customer systems. Anyway. An update about this, and a further question about what to expect from a broker. After choosing a broker from the list on RIPE's site we set up escrow, and being told by the broker of their due-diligence checks (they said they would verify the prefix was not routed anywhere, not in any blacklist, is verified to be "owned" by the seller, and that there were no "liens or encumbrances" (the brokers words)). All good so far. The broker's answer to my request for the results of their due-diligence wasn't particularly thorough or specific. So before transmitting the funds to escrow I thought I'd check the local country business registry for the seller organisation, which showed the company to have be ceased from trading about two years ago. So we are at the beginning again. Is it reasonable or unreasonable to expect that any broker would have spotted that earlier? Appreciate your feedback, Dana DANA KONKIN Head of Technology Mobile UK: +44 (0)7449 200 010 Mobile DE: +49 (0)1523 678 0060 Office: 0844 775 0000   www.onwave.com      CONFIDENTIALITY AND DISCLAIMER NOTICE: This e-mail is intended only for the addressee named above and the contents should not be disclosed to any other person nor copies taken. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of onwave Limited unless otherwise specifically stated. As internet communications are not secure we do not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message nor responsibility for any change made to this message after it was sent by the original sender. We advise you to carry out your own virus check before opening any attachment as we cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of any software viruses. Registered in England No: 7490613 -----Original Message----- From: members-discuss [mailto:members-discuss-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Thomas A. Bibb Sent: 14 May 2018 11:01 To: Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] VL: IP transfer (in)security IPv4 is still widely used and mores to the point that adoption is somewhat lacking due to major access networks not deploying v6. Simply responding with “time better spent rolling out v6” isn't an answer, the community is looking for a half way house, an interim solution to ease the woes of v4 policy. I don’t think any one is saying we shouldn’t deploy v6 nor that they want to continue and use v4 despite the looming depletion. Tom

On 14 May 2018, at 10:49, Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> wrote:

On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:20:35AM +0000, Janarthanan Sundaram wrote:

...

I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.

Why? This has been discussed many times, there is little space in unused blocks and if it was possible to liberate it (unlikely without a legal fight) it would probably run out in less time than it took to get it.

This is a waste of time better spent rolling out v6, in the time spent arguing over v4 this could have been done already.

At this point the only answer is roll out v6 or get off the net as you're holding up progress for everyone else.

regards brandon

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/hello%40thomasb ibb.co.uk

_______________________________________________ members-discuss mailing list members-discuss@ripe.net https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/members-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/options/members-discuss/dana.konkin%40onwave....

On Mon May 14, 2018 at 10:00:53AM +0000, Thomas A. Bibb wrote:

IPv4 is still widely used and mores to the point that adoption is somewhat lacking due to major access networks not deploying v6.

I don't disagree it is used but that is not going to make more available. v6 is being rolled out in large access networks and looks to be moving quickly - https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html Has everyone asking for v4 reclamation rolled out 100% v6 in their network? If not then get on with that first.

Simply responding with ???time better spent rolling out v6??? isn't an answer, the community is looking for a half way house, an interim solution to ease the woes of v4 policy.

There is no half way house interim solution, that's what we've had for the last 10+ years, anyone who didn't get their act together in that time blew it. Yes it sucks to be starting now but they are not totally stuck as they can buy space from others and that needs to be included in any new business plan before starting (and they still get a new LIR /22 to help them along).

I don???t think any one is saying we shouldn???t deploy v6 nor that they want to continue and use v4 despite the looming depletion.

That's the point I was responding to -

...

On 14 May 2018, at 10:49, Brandon Butterworth <hostmaster@bogons.net> wrote: On Mon May 14, 2018 at 08:20:35AM +0000, Janarthanan Sundaram wrote:

...

I think we should prioritize on on point two: what to do with unused blocks.

Why? This has been discussed many times, there is little space in unused blocks and if it was possible to liberate it (unlikely without a legal fight) it would probably run out in less time than it took to get it.

regards, brandon

On 05/14/2018 12:00 PM, Thomas A. Bibb wrote:

IPv4 is still widely used and mores to the point that adoption is somewhat lacking due to major access networks not deploying v6.

Yes, and wonder if there doesn't need to be put a little bit more pressure on them to get that implemented. What about doing some government lobbying in major markets (EU/US) to make IPv6 support a legal requirement for public access providers in the name of interoperability? Yours sincerely, Floris Bos

You mix up a LOT of things here. Most of these are legacy ranges and they do NOT belong to the RIRs - they belong to the end-users as *property*. These exist from pre-RIR times. I have absolutely no intent to return any legacy blocks and i guarantee you neither has any other legacy owner, it would be in many cases like moving company property without any reimbursement to a 3rd party (aka... theft...) and not very legal either. Largest legacy holder is by far the US Department of Defense (multiple /8). --William WeberConsulting, 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 10:02, Bruno Carvalho wrote: 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) | +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....)

Thanks very much Sander, sound advice and I do appreciate you (and everyone) for taking the time to answer. Kind regards, Dana -----Original Message----- From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander@steffann.nl] Sent: 09 May 2018 13:31 To: Dana Konkin (Onwave) <Dana.Konkin@onwave.com> Cc: members-discuss@ripe.net Subject: Re: [members-discuss] IP transfer (in)security Hello Dana,

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?

RIPE NCC can't guarantee the quality of escrow agents. The usual way to deal with this is to use an IPv4 prefix broker with a good reputation, who has successfully completed transactions with well-known organisations, and who therefore has lots of experience and a good reputation that they want to maintain. I'm sure that if you wish there are many brokers on this list that can reply off-list to you. Ask for references, let them explain the safeguards they implement to make sure you are not misled and that money changes hands securely. Contact their references, Google their names etc. Discussing the merits of companies isn't on-topic for this list, but I'm sure that there are also many people who can tell you about their experiences off-list if you ask :) Cheers, Sander