Adding Reference to Sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects
This is a proposal to add a reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects to increase the possibility of abuse tracking and handling.
Summary of Proposal:
This is a proposal to add a reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects to increase the possibility of abuse tracking and handling.
The usefulness, accuracy and updating of whois database information are major problems when tracking and handling events of abuse. This issue has been even more complicated when sponsoring LIR has been introduced, since another level of contract (and contact) with End User has been put in place.
Currently, End Users are able to obtain independent resources through virtually any sponsoring LIR. Just after that, the End Users are able to announce these resources under their own Autonomous System (AS). One should remember that End Users, their upstreams and/or the sponsoring LIRs could forget to update contact details. Taking all this into account leads to the problems with contacting network operators during abuse event handling.
As a contrary, LIR data in whois database seems to be accurate and up-to-date. The organisation objects with "org-type:" field set to LIR are maintained by RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT that is operated by RIPE NCC staff. Data put in those objects are transferred from other systems. All this (and few other things) guarantee data usefulness from majority of such objects.
Policy Text:
a. Current Policy Text (if modification)
[Following text is to be replaced from the RIPE Document "Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region." This will result in an additional contractual condition in the bullet point list.]
2.0 Contractual Responsibilities of End Users and LIRs
[…]
The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this document. However, at the minimum, all contracts should include:
- Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date
- Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this registration data will be published in the RIPE WHOIS Database
- Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be sub-assigned to a third party
- Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources
- A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if
- The resource holder cannot be contacted
- The annual fee to the LIR is not paid
- A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE policies as published on the RIPE web site and which may be amended from time to time.
b. New policy text
2.0 Contractual Responsibilities of End Users and LIRs
[Added only the third bullet point as contractual condition “Notice that link between resource holder and either LIR or RIPE NCC will be published in the RIPE Database”]
[…]
The details of any such contracts are outside the scope of this document. However, at the minimum, all contracts should include:
- Notice that the LIR is responsible for liaising with the resource holder to keep registration records up-to-date
- Notice that the resource holder is obliged to provide up-to-date registration data to the LIR and that some or all of this registration data will be published in the RIPE Database
- Notice that the link between resource holder and either LIR or RIPE NCC will be published in the RIPE Database
- Notice that none of the provider independent resources may be sub-assigned to a third party
- Notice that the resource holder is obliged to pay an annual fee to the LIR for the resources
- A clear statement that the resources will return by default to the RIPE NCC if
- The resource holder cannot be contacted
- The annual fee to the LIR is not paid
- A clear statement that the use of resources is subject to RIPE policies as published on the RIPE website and which may be amended from time to time.
Rationale:
a. Arguments supporting the proposal
- Contractual relationships between an End User and a sponsoring LIR or the RIPE NCC have been established.
- Minimum requirements of this relationship are well known (ripe-452).
- Another point of contact is known in case of any abuse.
b. Arguments opposing the proposal
- Proposed link could be used in the wrong way.
- Some legal issues could be raised.
- One can argue that the proposal could increase confusion about who should be contacted in case of abuse.