[ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Hank Nussbacher
hank at efes.iucc.ac.il
Wed Jul 18 19:16:52 CEST 2012
At 15:36 18/07/2012 +0200, Havard Eidnes wrote: >Hi, > >as you may be aware, the RIPE NCC is currently engaged in an >activity to establish contact with legacy address space holders, >and among other things to set up a contractual relationship >between the RIPE NCC and the legacy resource holders. > >However, it is my opinion that the current RIPE NCC actions with >legacy resource holders is destroying some of the valuable trust >they have built in the community over the years. > >It has been said that "the RIPE NCC does what the members tell >them to do". That does however not appear to be the case for >this action, where the RIPE NCC appears to act in a policy-free >zone, simply on executive decision. Despite the RIPE NCCs >knowledge that work is ongoing to formulate a policy for this >area, they are barging ahead, possibly in an attempt to establish >a fait accompli. It is indeed a shame that the RIPE NCC is plowing ahead without a mandate from the membership to be doing this. It is indeed a shame that the hundreds of legacy IP holders now view the RIPE NCC in a totally different light then they did previously. I do not quite understand the urgency the RIPE NCC sees in forging ahead quickly rather than taking the time to discuss the matter in a calm and non-pressured environment. I am indeed clueless as to why they are doing this. -Hank >The message sent to the legacy resource holders does not mention >the option which would probably be most preferable to at least >most of our customers, namely registering the resources via the >LIR at their service provider. One could suspect the RIPE NCC >has self-interest in driving up the number of LIRs, to increase >the number of paying customers of the RIPE NCC. > >Some of the documents about the approach with legacy resource >holders has mentioned a "stick and carrot" approach. I'll claim >that the stick is needlessly sharp and the carrot reeks of >decomposition. Explanation: > > * The stick is primarily the "we cannot guarantee in-addr.arpa > name service". Without it, a user will in practice be unable > to operate mail servers within the affected address space, > which would be a severe blow to those who still actively use > their address space. > > The freezing of the registry data is an inconvenience which > will ensure that the accuracy of the data whittles over time, > an action initiated by the RIPE NCC no less... Many legacy > resource holders have not updated their records in a long time > already (many didn't have an actual need to do so), so while > inconvenient, it's not as strong a stick as the threat of > removal of the in-addr.arpa delegation. It should however be > noted that the whittling of the registration data over time > also is detrimental for the RIPE community at large, not only > for the address space holder. > > * What's the carrot? Only the removal of the stick from above? > What makes the carrot particularly rotten is several things: > > * The open-ended and unliateral application of "all relevant > RIPE NCC policies and procedures". The fear would be "we > will mire you or your LIR (or both) down in pointless > address policy work to document ancient history, and have > the RIPE NCC verify (or deny, as the case may be) all > assignments done over time" (applicable where address space > has been used in PA-fashion). > ...or for PI-style assignments, the assignment itself might > be challenged. > * The highly uncertain status of the charging scheme in the > longer term for the legacy resource holders, where the > initial proposal to modify today's model had, with no > discussion, abolished the "age based discount", and where > current discussion is rampant with "payment per IP address" > schemes. The fear is that the RIPE NCC will gouge the > legacy resource holders either directly or indirectly, > "motivating" them to hand back the resource. > * The lack of recognition that these addresses were assigned > under a different policy. Anecdotal evidence suggests that > at one time you would be handed a class-B instead of 4 > class-Cs because there was fear of growth of the routing > table. Does the RIPE NCC now want to challenge the > assignments? > >In sum, this makes the RIPE NCC appear more as an extorting bully >rather than an agent who has the accuracy of the address register >as its foremost priority, and this destroys some of the valuable >trust they have built in the community over the years. > > >Regards, > >- Håvard
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Destruction of trust
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]