[address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeffrey A. Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jul 12 01:43:22 CEST 2008
Florian and all, I for one agree with your conclusion. I do have a question. Whom is doing the policing of RIPE's PI space/routing? Is that ICANN/IANA or is such policing done at all? Or are the LIR's supposed to do such policing themselves without oversight? Florian Weimer wrote: > * Shane Kerr: > > > I also don't speak for any member, but I think revoking assignments is > > a fantastic idea. > > > > In fact, I don't see how it makes sense to do otherwise. > > I think it depends on the question whether address space is a scarce > resource. Current RIPE policies do not actually treat it as such. And > if IPv6 is inevitable, it's not really cost-effective to scrape together > legacy resources. You burn through RIPE funds to gain perhaps a year or > two during which you can carry on with the legacy assignment processes. > But nobody knows how many disputes will occur--it could happen that RIPE > NCC believes that it's still got legacy resources distribute, but know > wants to touch them with a three-meter pole. > > > Someone claims to be the authorized user of some addresses. *Nobody* > > has any relationship wth this person. The only evidence you have is > > that at one time in the past someone was assigned the addresses. > > If there's no other claim to those addresses, what harm is done? > > > Sure, I can call the people peering with the originator of the > > advertisement, and see why they are carrying the traffic. They might > > or might not be willing to give me that information, or privacy or > > business reasons. Also, all because it is convenient for them to carry > > the advertisements does not mean somebody else won't do the same > > thing for the same space for a different originator. And finally, we > > have a perfectly workable system so I don't *have* to go through this > > kind of nonsense: the RIR system. > > The RIR system does not prevent address space hijacking. I don't think > I can call RIPE NCC and demand that they stop it if it affects one of my > prefixes. RIPE NCC hasn't got a routing police. > > > If people are unwilling to sign a contract which basically says, "I am > > using this address space", then take their space back. It's not scary, > > really. > > We don't know what will be in the contract. I can't envision how many > PI-space owners would agree to things like this: > > | Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be > | sub-assigned to a third party > > | Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the > | LIR for the resources > > | A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE > | policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended > | from time to time > > First point seems to imply that I can't run certain services > (e.g. hosting) from PI space. Second point requires me to set up > billing procedures which might not exist yet. Third point subjects me > to the whim of the RIPE processes (which might implement yearly fees > payable to RIPE in the future, for instance). > > I don't think it's a good idea to give resources to end users without > any means of contacting them after the assignment. But I think the > current proposal is not ready for implementation. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Revised 2007-01 moved back to Review Period (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]