[address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Töma Gavrichenkov
ximaera at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 18:03:10 CET 2018
Hi Leo, Just to make it 100% clear for me: do you mean to say that you support my proposal No. 2? пн, 5 нояб. 2018 г., 23:12 Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda at icann.org>: > Hi, > > Töma Gavrichenkov wrote: > > [...] > > > > When an End User has a network using public address space this > > > _must_ be registered separately with the contact details of the End > > > User. Where the End User is an individual rather than an > > > organisation, the contact information of the service provider may > > > be substituted for the End Users. > > [...] > > > All in all, RIPE-708 6.2 is a perfect example of an imperfect > > policy, too strict and too vague at the same time. Which is bad, > > because a) some ISPs would just prefer to ignore it, no matter > > the "must", and would be paying less attention to other "musts" > > they would encounter in other policy documents, b) those ISPs > > who would choose to be responsible about RIPE DB usage risk > > losing customers and wouldn't be able to defend their attitude > > against the customers, let alone courts, based on the RIPE DB > > policy. > > Over 20 years ago, the ISP at which I worked had a number of customers > with home networks using public IP address space. The ISP placed its own > contact information in the RIPE Whois Database with a comment that the > address space was assigned to an individual customer. > > If I remember correctly this was done for two key reasons: > > 1. RIPE policy does not override the law of the land. > 2. There was very little value in placing those customers' contact details > in the RIPE Whois Database because they were network users and not network > administrators. The ISP's NOC staff had skills, tools, processes, and > training and were in a much stronger position to provide meaningful > assistance to anyone with a genuine reason to make contact about the > administration of one of those customer networks. > > As I remember, the RIPE NCC was happy with the rationale back then. While > the specific wording of RIPE policy might have changed somewhat in the last > 20 years, I don't think the intent has. > > The contact details of the End User do not have to mean their personal > phone number or e-mail address. And if they do not have the skills, tools, > processes, and training to provide meaningful assistance to anyone with a > genuine reason to make contact about a specific network, providing a > personal phone number or e-mail address is arguably unhelpful. > > Kind regards, > > Leo Vegoda > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20181106/6753602b/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [Ext] Policies and Guidelines for Assignments for Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]