Yes, I forgot that one. ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK. -as On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:35, David Conrad wrote:

On Oct 7, 2011, at 11:31 AM, Arturo Servin wrote:

...

What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4".

Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.

Seriously?

http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsoft-pays-nortel-75-million-...

The next phases are anger, bargaining, depression, and finally acceptance.

Regards, -drc

Thanks, I didn't know that one. I followed the link to "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" and seems a good and simple approach. Regards, .as On 9 Oct 2011, at 10:16, Martin Millnert wrote:

Arturo,

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

ARIN and APNIC allows it, LACNIC will when it reaches the last /12 (so now is not possible). RIPE NCC and Afrinic do not have a policy yet AFAIK.

RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 listed, *right now*. https://www.ripe.net/lir-services/resource-management/listing

Regards, Martin

Maybe we should just allow this to go on until all IPv4 space is so polluted that no-one wants to use it anymore :-) "Bad Reputation as an IPv6 Transition Driver" Nice title for a PPT deck... On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Tore Anderson <tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com> wrote:

* Martin Millnert

...

RIPE's LIR IPv4 listing service has 1x /20 listed, *right now*.

I wonder if that one was listed by mistake. The prefix in question, 128.0.16.0/20, was assigned to NetWave Ltd. by the NCC last Tuesday. If it isn't a mistake, I wonder how they justified obtaining the prefix in the first place.

-- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com

-- -- ========================= Carlos M. Martinez-Cagnazzo http://www.labs.lacnic.net =========================

I don't buy the "bad-guys-rig-policies" thing... but well, I could be wrong. But regarding your second comment, yes, I do believe that bad guys take the path of least resistance whenever possible. At some point IPv6 will look attractive to them and they will start using it. My logs show that I get spam over IPv6, so some bad guys might be already doing it. cheers! Carlos On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

And I suppose the bad guys who are out there gaming RIPE etc policies are not touching v6 with a bargepole?

Or are they stockpiling massive amounts of v6 space?

On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Carlos Martinez-Cagnazzo < carlosm3011@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Maybe we should just allow this to go on until all IPv4 space is so polluted that no-one wants to use it anymore :-)

"Bad Reputation as an IPv6 Transition Driver"

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

On 10/7/11 11:31 , Arturo Servin wrote:

What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4".

Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.

If you're not a legitimate business why would you bother with commonly accepted policy?

If you mean "hijacking" unused IPv4 space, that's another history.

the post fails entirely to cite actual examples, then goes off into the weeds on domain name reputation.

.as

On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:11, Joly MacFie wrote:

...

I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering?

j

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com> Date: Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:31 PM

Botnets buying up IPv4 address space

http://j.mp/nMJ5Lr (Threat Post)

"Now, in one effort to get around these systems, some attackers are taking advantage of the lack of IPV4 space by either purchasing or renting blocks of IP space with good reputations that have been built up over the course of several years. A number of legitimate trading and auction sites have appeared as the IPV4 space became scarcer, and the attackers have gotten involved as well, getting their hands on known good IP blocks and using them for C&C or hosting malware."

- - -

--Lauren-- NNSquad Moderator

-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

I agree with Benson. In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running out. They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes. -as On 7 Oct 2011, at 16:03, Benson Schliesser wrote:

I don't see anything new in the article, and would classify parts of it as scaremongering. (e.g. the criticism of IPv6)

If not short-lived, then at least self-limiting. --Richard On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Arturo Servin <arturo.servin@gmail.com> wrote:

...

       I agree with Benson.

       In fact, for this "problem" I find irrelevant that IPv4 is running out. They are just looking for good reputation IP nodes.

isn't this a short-lived problem then?

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address space to those who need it.

And hopefully... the greater the address space "pressure" or contention there is for IPv4 address resources, the more strongly organizations will feel compelled towards swapping over to IPv6 :) -- -JH

On 10/9/11 05:10 , Martin Millnert wrote:

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:

...

IPv4 addresses will never run out in a strict sense of the word, it will just become increasingly more difficult to reassign IPv4 address space to those who need it.

If you by difficult mean expensive, then I agree.

there are several kinds of transactional friction, some are easily denominated in dollars,

Regards, Martin

What do you mean with "purchasing or renting IPv4". Last time that I check it was not possible in the RIR world.

maybe you should look again. it's a new century. randy

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 3:32 PM, William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:

As for auctioning IP blocks, my experience is that hackers don't bother. If they want IP addresses beyond what the colo provider offers, they steal them: find a block of addresses not routed on the public Internet and forge LoAs they present to their ISP. They're going to lose them anyway, so why bother paying money?

ala: 146.20.0.0 ?

The important outcome is that transfers are documented. Making it easier for sellers to update Whois (so it points to the buyer) will encourage documentation. If "needs justification" is ever a disincentive to update Whois, then it will discourage documentation. Granted, a seller that doesn't update Whois should be more worried about the reputation of the buyer. But regardless, it is incorrect to assume that "needs justification" will prevent bad actors from acquiring address blocks. Even bad actors can justify their need, and some of them might even (*gasp*) lie about it in order to get what they want. The result would look like a normal transfer (with justified need, a Whois update, etc) and yet would result in a bad actor becoming an address holder. Cheers, -Benson On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:

...

I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering? Probably scaremongering... but it does raise an interesting thought.

It provides another argument why RIRs don't need to abandon justified need as a mandatory criteria for transferring addresses to specified recipients out of fear that legacy and other holders will engage in "unofficial" sales and transfers that they intentionally fail to record via WHOIS.

The legacy holder/unofficial transferror would be putting the reputation of their entire address block, and their other allocations at risk; if the buyer eventually hands some of the unofficial allocation to a spammer, either by accident, or intentionally, doesn't matter.

The holder of addresses that unofficially transferred them, could have some major headaches, including service-affecting headaches to their network... just to sell spare IP addresses faster for a few extra bucks; when there is a legitimate process available that doesn't have that risk?

...

j -- -JH

On Oct 7, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

The important outcome is that transfers are documented. Making it easier for sellers to update Whois (so it points to the buyer) will encourage documentation. If "needs justification" is ever a disincentive to update Whois, then it will discourage documentation.

Granted, a seller that doesn't update Whois should be more worried about the reputation of the buyer. But regardless, it is incorrect to assume that "needs justification" will prevent bad actors from acquiring address blocks. Even bad actors can justify their need, and some of them might even (*gasp*) lie about it in order to get what they want. The result would look like a normal transfer (with justified need, a Whois update, etc) and yet would result in a bad actor becoming an address holder.

True, however, the existence of bad actors encourages documentation even if one needs to comply with needs basis, which has many other benefits to the community. Documentation is NOT the highest single purpose of ARIN and eliminating community developed policy in favor of some mythical incentive towards documentation. Indeed, there is actually no evidence to support the theory that organizations that transfer outside of needs basis would choose to document those transfers through ARIN even if that requirement were removed. Likely if we removed needs basis, we would see the same level of undocumented transfers, but, with the added detriments of speculative address hoarding, higher artificial valuations of integers, etc. Owen

Cheers, -Benson

On Oct 7, 2011, at 6:08 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:

...

On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Joly MacFie <joly@punkcast.com> wrote:

...

I'd welcome comments as to solutions to this. Or is it just scaremongering? Probably scaremongering... but it does raise an interesting thought.

It provides another argument why RIRs don't need to abandon justified need as a mandatory criteria for transferring addresses to specified recipients out of fear that legacy and other holders will engage in "unofficial" sales and transfers that they intentionally fail to record via WHOIS.

The legacy holder/unofficial transferror would be putting the reputation of their entire address block, and their other allocations at risk; if the buyer eventually hands some of the unofficial allocation to a spammer, either by accident, or intentionally, doesn't matter.

The holder of addresses that unofficially transferred them, could have some major headaches, including service-affecting headaches to their network... just to sell spare IP addresses faster for a few extra bucks; when there is a legitimate process available that doesn't have that risk?

...

j -- -JH