[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Further below some comments on Oliver's statement, which (*) probably
do not contribute much to this discussion, but I felt some words are
needed. (*) which = the comments, if the majority of statements do, I
leave up to you to decide.


But Oliver brought up indeed one interesting aspect (beside the 
operational question on how to secure RDNS): What about legal 
aspects (for both "sides")?

Oliver Bartels wrote:
> It is as with all resources: At the end, organization rules here or
> there, it ends up that resources are something important to individuals
> or organisations and resources that have been registered as independent
> for more than 15 years are obviously covered by EU law, thus this is
> not a decision that can be done just by majority vote or company policy
> or whatever, it is as with other resources something that is protected
> by law.

Have there at all ever been a case where a LIR holding A-PI/-U space
withdraw an end user's PI on purpose and against the will/without the
agreement of the end user and the end user went to court as RIPE NCC
couldn't have this sorted out? 

Markus



Oliver Bartels wrote:
> It is not on the side of the resource holders that they can't be
> contacted, it is just that it is difficult to us to find a LIR
> contact that is responsive. You probably know about the dificulties
> with big organisations and there have been no approach to contact us
> in the last years.

I agree that finding the right contacts in big organizations might 
be difficult. But if you state, it's always easy to find contacts
for PIs, I do not agree at all ... you've probably never tried to
do some "cleanups".

BTW: the email address you had last contact with K* about your address
ranges back in 2002 still works ... so at least you should have had
no problems ... 

> - At the time your company received the /14 from the *liquidator*
> of KPNQwest, the unspecified and PI attributes were already
> installed.
> [...]
> This means: [...]

Just to make it clear, as your statements could be read quite negative:

KPN always respected (and will continue to respect) the "rights" of
the PI owners out of the former de.xlink allocations. Further, all
main contact email addresses of Xlink, KPNQwest in regards to address
management still work.

> If the solution is to split, if there is *no other* agreement
> and the RIPE NCC wants to separate this spaces, it has to.
> "Big companies effort" is no reason to interfere with third party
> rights or just grab them.

Who is grabbing which rights?

> - *However*: Reasonable people typically find reasonable solutions.
> The current /24 over /14 works for us - as long as KPN routes any
> traffic misrouted then to correct destination, provides RDNS (this
> is a thing that should be discussed how to handle), does not block
> maintainers (dto.!) etc.

The routing ... where should we route the traffic to if the Internet
does not already do this and you are not connected to KPN? (The only
thing I could think of would be the case where some networks in the
middle do filter on some questionable allocation sizes and traffic
ends up within our network AND there's a known path from us to you.)

RDNS is indeed a very valid point as the /16 is delegated to KPN and
we delegate further. I do understand the concerns and consider this
as well a non-optimal solution.

About the "does not block maintainers". This is an agreement / out-
come of an old discussion between RIPE NCC and us as LIR years ago.
It has been re-verified recently and RIPE NCC confirmed: "yes, don't
give out maintainers". So whom are you blaming for what?


-- 
Darmstädter Landstrasse 184      | 60598 Frankfurt        | Germany
+49 (0)178 5352346               | <Markus.Weber at kpn.DE>  | www.kpn.de

KPN EuroRings Germany B.V.       | Niederlassung Frankfurt am Main
Amtsgericht Frankfurt HRB99781   | USt.IdNr. DE 815496855
Geschäftsführer  Jesus Martinez  & Jacob Leendert Hage