[anti-abuse-wg] The Rules
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Rules
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Bye Bye (was: Re: The Rules)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Thu Jun 27 22:09:18 CEST 2013
Hi, On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 12:58:32PM -0700, Ronald F. Guilmette wrote: > In message <20130627111402.GZ2706 at Space.Net>, > Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > > >> Assume for the sake of argument that I received a /21 from some RIPE > >> LiR one year ago. Assume that I never put _anything_ in it. Assume > >> that RIPE NCC "audits" me. What happens, exactly? > > > >If you got the /21 *from a LIR*, you will not be audited, because you're > >not dealing with the NCC. > > > >If you *are* a LIR, and as that LIR have received a /21, the NCC will try > >to ensure that whatever you registered is OK > > Please definie the meaning of "OK" in this context. Technically OK, as in "no overlaps in the network objects", policy-wise OK, as in "no assignments bigger than permitted by your assignment window", and sometimes they ask for the justification documents for a given assignment, aka "the form that needs to be filled in". > >if you have never registered > >anything, nothing will happen, unless they find lies in your contractual > >information (company doesn't exist, etc.) - in *that* case they will > >close down the LIR and take back the space. > > So, if I am understanding you correctly, if, say, a given LIR obtained, > say, a /17 two years ago, and then just sat on it, and never put a > single thing in it in all that time, there is nothing that can or will > be done about that colossal waste of (supposedly) precious IPv4 space. > Is that correct? Have I understood you correctly? Yes. (Though I disagree with you on the preciousness of IPv4 space. Reclaiming even a full /8 would have pushed out the IPv4 run-out in the RIPE region by a few months, but not changed the fundamental issue of "there is no way to make IPv4 last") > And likewise, if said hypothetical LIR obtained the same hypothetical /17 > two years ago, and since that time has allocated it to a "customer" who > then proceeded to fill it only with a single physical machine and on > the order of 32,000 utterly phony baloney domain names, either for the > purpose of snowshoe spamming or for the purpose of so-called "blackhat > SEO", then there is nothing that anybody within RIPE, or within RIPE NCC, > or anywhere in all the world either may or will do about that. Is that > a correct interpretation of what you have said? Yes. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 306 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130627/8f5a7f24/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] The Rules
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Bye Bye (was: Re: The Rules)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]