[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
furio ercolessi
furio+as at spin.it
Mon Jul 1 09:28:38 CEST 2013
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > HI, > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:43:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: > > > [...] > > > Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text: > > > > > > "6.6 Validity of an Assignment > > > All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the > > > assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly > > > registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific > > > purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer > > > valid." > > > > > > Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are > > > classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the > > > motivation given to get the assignment. > > This paragraph mentions *assignments*, which is (in the context of LIRs) > what a LIR gives to it's customers. > > So indeed, if a customer is lying to the LIR, the assignment falls back > to the LIR (which makes a difference when the LIR's allocation is full > and they can't get more space because their assignments are not valid). > > This paragraph does not apply to the *allocation* give to the LIR from > the RIPE NCC. Sure, I fully understand that. The question remains. Who is supposed to classify the range as invalid ? Are invalid assignments revoked by RIPE NCC ? If not, what the 6.6 wording is there for ? What happens if an assignment is revoked and the customer continues to use the same allocated and now unassigned space as if nothing happened ? furio ercolessi
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]