[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
furio ercolessi
furio+as at spin.it
Sat Jun 29 15:43:23 CEST 2013
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: > [...] > Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text: > > "6.6 Validity of an Assignment > All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the > assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly > registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific > purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer > valid." > > Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are > classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the > motivation given to get the assignment. > > Then the RIPENCC problem, it seems to me, is that "no longer valid" > ranges remain in use for a long period of time. This seems to > indicate that there is no effective mechanism to enforce the rules. > Indeed, what is the semantic meaning of "no longer valid" if people > continue to use those ranges for extended periods of time ? > "Invalid" with respect to what ? RIPE-582 does not seem to address this > point. If it does, please point me to the relevant section, or to > another document that discuss this point. > > At the end, the problem seems to boil down to these questions: > > "Does the RIPE Community really want to have resources defined as > "invalid", yet live without a real working mechanism to have these > invalid resources claimed back and reassigned ? If not, would the > introduction of such an enforcement mechanism go against the acceptable > operational limits for a RIR ? And if yes, what is the purpose of defining > rules that can not be enforced, and hence resulting in bad guys getting > as much resources as they like by making false statements ?" Sadly, these questions remained mostly unanswered so far. I am starting to think that perhaps no attempts are made to classify IPv4 assignments as "invalid" according to RIPE-582, section 6.6. I will be glad to know about a counterexample. furio
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]