[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website

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.
> 
> Then the RIPENCC problem, it seems to me, is that "no longer valid"
> ranges remain in use for a long period of time.  This seems to
> indicate that there is no effective mechanism to enforce the rules.  
> Indeed, what is the semantic meaning of "no longer valid" if people 
> continue to use those ranges for extended periods of time ?
> "Invalid" with respect to what ?  RIPE-582 does not seem to address this
> point.  If it does, please point me to the relevant section, or to
> another document that discuss this point.
> 
> At the end, the problem seems to boil down to these questions:
> 
> "Does the RIPE Community really want to have resources defined as
>  "invalid", yet live without a real working mechanism to have these 
>  invalid resources claimed back and reassigned ?  If not, would the 
>  introduction of such an enforcement mechanism go against the acceptable 
>  operational limits for a RIR ? And if yes, what is the purpose of defining 
>  rules that can not be enforced, and hence resulting in bad guys getting 
>  as much resources as they like by making false statements ?"

Sadly, these questions remained mostly unanswered so far.

I am starting to think that perhaps no attempts are made to classify
IPv4 assignments as "invalid" according to RIPE-582, section 6.6.
I will be glad to know about a counterexample.

furio