5 ms·

Well, if that organisation didn't have a use for those addresses... I don't see what the big deal is.

by nsizx 5y ago

itsbits 5y ago
I think the question is why not sell them openly instead sell them via backgate..
- nsizx 5y ago
  I assume Amazon came to them and offered the money and they accepted. I don't see anything shady about that. How do you sell something "openly"? Via an auction website? Is that standard procedure for everything these people sell?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Standard Internet procedures for IP addresses is apply to your Regional Internet Registry for addresses, and the panel decides who will make best use of them (usually smaller/newer providers are prioritized). You only pay administrative/membership fees for the addresses because IP addresses are technical bits not property... everyone operates addresses but nobody owns them. That people sell food and houses is disconcerting in the physical world and creates real problems for real people where some can't afford to eat or have a roof over their head despite a global abundance of resources. That people do the same in the virtual world, with literal numbers, is beyond the scope of comprehension: pure madness.
    - nsizx 5y ago
      The fact that you find private property "disconcerting" is enough to know this conversation is not going to go anywhere.
      - Craighead 5y ago
        Oh it went somewhere, directly to run away capitalism and regulatory captures markets. Be dismissive all you want.
      - southerntofu 5y ago
        Just because i don't hold your religious beliefs in regards to private property doesn't mean we can't have a conversation. Of course, if the entire conversation revolves around the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of private property, we'll wander away from the topic that big tech multinationals are eating away the Internet commons. Specifically from Amazon, i'm also referring to the .amazon TLD case.
      - nextaccountic 5y ago
        IP addresses were distributed on an per need basis. Now it became a lucrative investment (people didn't originally pay millions for this block!) Why should IP addresses be private property? Why not simply reclaim unused IP addresses instead, and re-distribute it using the usual mechanism?
southerntofu 5y ago
That organization did not own those addresses. In the most generous interpretation of the situation, they were administrative custodians to the good usage of those addresses. Reselling them to a for-profit company was definitely not what was intended by anyone and directly contradicts their mission as custodians. Those addresses were that of the global radioamateur community and no one else's. That's why i made a comparison with .org. ORG TLD was created exclusively by and for non-profits, so it was a scandal when some execs conspired against the general public to resell it and induce more costs for everyone. Likewise, it's a scandal that when you need/want to build DIY radio Internet setup, your addresses which were reserved for that usage don't exist anymore, as they have been appropriated by Amazon. Please note that this story would be less of a scandal if the community had been consulted on how much of the IP range to sell (retaining some for legit usage), and/or if that money benefited the community and not some greedy capitalist execs, and/or if they had been reattributed through normal channels (RIPE and other RIRs) and not commercialized, none of which is true.
- drmpeg 5y ago
  Amateur radio still has 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Not exactly a shortage. Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club. https://www.ampr.org/grants/ https://www.ampr.org/grants/
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    Not exactly a shortage, no. But giving away an entire range without giving ample time (think months/years) for network operators to comply is a bit harsh. Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well. To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.
southerntofu 5y ago
I have 127.0.0.0/8 for sale! Give me 100 million euros and it's all yours! What do you mean some people are actually using those addresses and i don't own them? RFC makes it very clear local link means my own machine and i pretty much own my own machine, thank you. Do you see how ridiculous is this situation now?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nsizx 5y ago
  You don't have that for sale, because you don't own it, and if you try to announce it you will get disconnected from all your peers and will have to close shop.
  - netr0ute 5y ago
    You just got wooooshed.
    - nsizx 5y ago
      I know it was a joke, but according to his other comments he seems to think IP addresses cannot be owned because they are nothing but numbers.
      - netr0ute 5y ago
        That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if you just buy some routers and create a way to get advantageous peering relationships. It's an offer you can't refuse.
        5y ago
greatgib 5y ago
You also have to know that they got the address range for free, for the common good. Before they would be taken over by money.

Well, if that organisation didn't have a use for those addresses... I don't see what the big deal is.

by nsizx 5y ago

Well, if that organisation didn't have a use for those addresses... I don't see what the big deal is.

itsbits 5y ago

I think the question is why not sell them openly instead sell them via backgate..

nsizx 5y ago
I assume Amazon came to them and offered the money and they accepted. I don't see anything shady about that. How do you sell something "openly"? Via an auction website? Is that standard procedure for everything these people sell?
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Standard Internet procedures for IP addresses is apply to your Regional Internet Registry for addresses, and the panel decides who will make best use of them (usually smaller/newer providers are prioritized). You only pay administrative/membership fees for the addresses because IP addresses are technical bits not property... everyone operates addresses but nobody owns them. That people sell food and houses is disconcerting in the physical world and creates real problems for real people where some can't afford to eat or have a roof over their head despite a global abundance of resources. That people do the same in the virtual world, with literal numbers, is beyond the scope of comprehension: pure madness.
  - nsizx 5y ago
    The fact that you find private property "disconcerting" is enough to know this conversation is not going to go anywhere.
    - Craighead 5y ago
      Oh it went somewhere, directly to run away capitalism and regulatory captures markets. Be dismissive all you want.
    - southerntofu 5y ago
      Just because i don't hold your religious beliefs in regards to private property doesn't mean we can't have a conversation. Of course, if the entire conversation revolves around the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of private property, we'll wander away from the topic that big tech multinationals are eating away the Internet commons. Specifically from Amazon, i'm also referring to the .amazon TLD case.
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      IP addresses were distributed on an per need basis. Now it became a lucrative investment (people didn't originally pay millions for this block!) Why should IP addresses be private property? Why not simply reclaim unused IP addresses instead, and re-distribute it using the usual mechanism?

southerntofu 5y ago

That organization did not own those addresses. In the most generous interpretation of the situation, they were administrative custodians to the good usage of those addresses. Reselling them to a for-profit company was definitely not what was intended by anyone and directly contradicts their mission as custodians. Those addresses were that of the global radioamateur community and no one else's. That's why i made a comparison with .org. ORG TLD was created exclusively by and for non-profits, so it was a scandal when some execs conspired against the general public to resell it and induce more costs for everyone. Likewise, it's a scandal that when you need/want to build DIY radio Internet setup, your addresses which were reserved for that usage don't exist anymore, as they have been appropriated by Amazon. Please note that this story would be less of a scandal if the community had been consulted on how much of the IP range to sell (retaining some for legit usage), and/or if that money benefited the community and not some greedy capitalist execs, and/or if they had been reattributed through normal channels (RIPE and other RIRs) and not commercialized, none of which is true.

drmpeg 5y ago
Amateur radio still has 44.0.0.0/9 and 44.128.0.0/10. Not exactly a shortage. Also, they are giving back to the community. The largest grant so far was $1,620,000 to save a radio telescope for the MIT Amateur Radio club. https://www.ampr.org/grants/ https://www.ampr.org/grants/
- southerntofu 5y ago
  Not exactly a shortage, no. But giving away an entire range without giving ample time (think months/years) for network operators to comply is a bit harsh. Thanks for the link to their grants. It's good to see they're doing something useful with the money and it's not a case of outright corruption. Although one could argue a club from one of the biggest colleges in the global north may have more suited avenues for funding, i'm glad to see smaller projects in there as well. To be fair, if the goal was to raise money for the community, would it not have been wiser to rent the IP space, or to setup a proper charitable auction? The IPv4 addresses are bound to go up in value in the coming years, now that major RIRs have given away all the remaining blocks, so that might have brought more revenue.

southerntofu 5y ago

I have 127.0.0.0/8 for sale! Give me 100 million euros and it's all yours! What do you mean some people are actually using those addresses and i don't own them? RFC makes it very clear local link means my own machine and i pretty much own my own machine, thank you. Do you see how ridiculous is this situation now?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nsizx 5y ago
You don't have that for sale, because you don't own it, and if you try to announce it you will get disconnected from all your peers and will have to close shop.
- netr0ute 5y ago
  You just got wooooshed.
  - nsizx 5y ago
    I know it was a joke, but according to his other comments he seems to think IP addresses cannot be owned because they are nothing but numbers.
    - netr0ute 5y ago
      That's true though. If you're a tier 1 network then you can advertise whatever you want, and if they cut you off on that advertised address, then you can cut your peer's address off. And, if you're big enough, the peers can't just disconnect from you altogether or they themselves would lose connections to other peers. This is why BGP and the other routing protocols are so cool; you can get control of the internet if you just buy some routers and create a way to get advantageous peering relationships. It's an offer you can't refuse.
      - 5y ago

greatgib 5y ago

You also have to know that they got the address range for free, for the common good. Before they would be taken over by money.