[db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sebastian Wiesinger
sebastian at karotte.org
Fri Nov 4 13:38:08 CET 2016
Hi David, thank you for the in-depth answer! * fransossen at yahoo.com <fransossen at yahoo.com> [2016-11-03 12:12]: > A) Being able to indicate the AS and prefixes covered by a specific > abuse email directly in the role object used as abuse-c: . > > Annoying to set up, not very intuitive at first, but less annoying > than having to create new org objects per network segments requiring > different role objects as abuse-c: each time. Covers the need of > LIRs with PA, AS number and PI resource holders in terms of > potential granularity. I personally would also find this annoying and quite a bit unintuitive. ;) I *DO* like the granularity but I don't think it outweighs having all of that pushed to a single object instead of having multiple abuse-c's that are probably managed by different maintainers (giving customers the opportunity to manage their own abuse-c object). Also I would image this would necessitate quite a bit of special parsing in the database software. > B) Allow abuse handler to be added directly on the > Inet(6)num/Aut-num entries in the DB. This is what I would prefer right now. It is low cost to implement, it is easy to parse (use abuse-c: if available, else go to the organisation abuse-c). > I am not quite having any other ideas on how to proceed that would > fit within the current RIPE DB rules...route objects pop to mind, > but would also have their quirks. I would prefer to have option B) right now. *If* we need more granularity it would probably need to be a full fledged (meaning: more complicated) solution. I imagine a new object-type that can be a CIDR less-or-equal your allocation/assignment that references a abuse contact (which would bring in all sort of questions regarding authorization etc.) or an inet(6)num: with special type ABUSE-CONTACT (or something else). I think that this is a special case that probably not many people have use for. Right now having abuse-c at inet(6)nums would ease the pain for quite a few people. Best Regards Sebastian -- GPG Key: 0x93A0B9CE (F4F6 B1A3 866B 26E9 450A 9D82 58A2 D94A 93A0 B9CE) 'Are you Death?' ... IT'S THE SCYTHE, ISN'T IT? PEOPLE ALWAYS NOTICE THE SCYTHE. -- Terry Pratchett, The Fifth Elephant -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 581 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/db-wg/attachments/20161104/5bd38535/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] More-specific abuse-c
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]