And so it ends...

Suresh Ramasubramanian ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Feb 3 20:24:53 CST 2011


If you want to follow it up there's a pretty interesting thread
ongoing in the ripe anti abuse working group

All of the traffic from 2011 (only a few posts) ..
http://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2011/

Start with this note here -
http://ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/anti-abuse-wg/2011/msg00000.html
- where (a few months late) I wrote in to protest Richard Cox's being
removed as co-chair of the ripe anti abuse working group because he
made much the same points.  There was some argument that RIPE WG
co-chairs are responsible to the RIPE chair / board etc and should be
removed if they are overly critical of these, as richard admittedly
was.

Then go off far afield into various topics including whether that wg
was really operational, and then the same question you asked .. what
to do when the same entities acquiring /15s get themselves IPv6
netblocks?  There seems to be a belief (in various posts in those
threads) that v6 is so vast it just wont matter.  Not sure that I
share the belief but ..

Anyway as this is about RIPE LIRs, those interested please join the
abuse wg (link above) and chip in.

--srs

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 10:02 PM, Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2011, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
>
>> On Feb 3, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> The real fun's going to be over the next several years as the RIR's
>>> become irrelevant in the acquisition of scarce IPv4 resources...and things
>>> become less stable as lots of orgs rush to implement a strange new IP
>>> version.
>>
>> Supposedly[*] transfers between private entities are still supposed to be
>> justified to the local RIRs.  (At least that's how it works in ARIN's area.)
>
> I was going to say this when I walked up to the mic at the IPv4 runout talk
> yesterday morning, but sat down when they said "we're going to wrap this up
> now" and ended up going and talking to the RIPE people about it.
>
> For a year or more, there have been RIPE region LIRs willing to lease
> relatively large amounts of IPv4 to anyone willing to pay.  The ones I've
> been noticing have been "snowshoe spammers" who get their RIPE space and
> then announce it in datacenters in the US...presumably on rented dedicated
> servers from which they send spam.
>
> My point being, the leasing of IP space to non-connectivity customers is
> already well established, whether it's technically permitted by the
> [ir]relevant RIRs.  I fully expect this to continue and spread. Eventually,
> holders of large legacy blocks will realize they can make good money acting
> as an LIR, leasing portions of their unused space to people who need it and
> can't get it, want it and don't qualify, etc.
>
> These start-up LIRs won't be bound by RIR policies, both because in some
> cases they'll be legacy space holders with no RSA with their region's RIR,
> and because they won't be worried about eligibility for future RIR
> allocations of v4 space...because there won't be any.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Jon Lewis, MCP :)           |  I route
>  Senior Network Engineer     |  therefore you are
>  Atlantic Net                |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>
>



-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)




More information about the NANOG mailing list