Re: [dp-tf] Re: [apwg-chairs] Re: 91.198.71.0 - 91.198.71.255

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

On 8 Nov 2007, at 17:57, Gert Doering wrote:

[...]

> > Finally, your suggestion to include the identity of the LIR in PI/AS
> > assignment objects is an interesting one. If you wish to pursue it,  
> > it
> > should be made to the Database and/or Address Policy Working Groups.
> Actually I think that this wouldn't be easy today (given that PI
> stands for "independent"), but with the new contract framework, we
> *do* have the instruments to tag PI/AS objects to "who is the
> currently-responsible LIR for this"?
Why would we care which LIR sent in a request for a PI assignment and  
why would we want to require "independent" networks to maintain a  
contractual relationship with an LIR?
I can't speak for anyone else but I don't care who sends in the  
request. I care who is operating the network and how to contact them.  
Anything that diverts us from maintaining operationally relevant  
contact information is unhelpful.
Identifying LIRs strikes me as a mechanism to label LIRs as either  
"good" or "bad" and doing this is at best likely to besmirch innocent  
customers who are unrelated to any abuse. At worst it is likely to  
cause them problems operating their networks. "Guilty by association"  
is something we should try to avoid.
Regards,

Leo Vegoda