[ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 17.10.2012 23:16, Sascha Luck wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:53:02PM +0200, Michael Markstaller
> wrote:
>> For a working Internet I'd appreciate a definite, clear,
>> confirmed, current contact for resources in case of abuse etc..
> 
> For the n-th time now in this thread: The LIR IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
> for abuse from a sponsored PI range. Same as the NCC IS NOT
> RESPONSIBLE for abuse from a PA range.
> 
> As long as people will attempt to MAKE the LIRs responsible for
> their sponsored PI, I will oppose any such policy. Harassing a LIR
> for perceived abuse from a PI range wastes your time and pisses off
> the LIR.

Who is it then?

Sorry, thats a little unfair..
We as LIR and me as CTO have to be responsible for our resources.
Lets say it a little drastic: If someone asks me for a /24 to spam the
world, I'd tell him I won't do this as I'm responsible what happens
there. Point.
But would it be ok to tell: "Well, hmm, get a PI don't tell anybody
it's from me and push out your shit over another provider so they just
don't call up me?"
Don't think so..

> That, the sponsoring LIR *IS* responsible for since 2007-01, so
> any non-contactable PI holders should be shut down when the next
> payday comes around at the latest. Also the NCC can shutdown LIRs
> for incorrect information, I assume that to include PI
> information.

I don't see this to happen but I maybe wrong..


>> That's the point where I want to know, whom to contact "upstream"
>> to clarify this.. Someone should be able to get contacted (not 
>> responsible!)..
> 
> A sponsoring LIR *may* be the upstream, in which case the ASPATH
> should show it. Many LIRs do not route their sponsored PI
> resources.

Thats clear but there IMHO must be some path to get hold of the user -
either via sponsoring LIR or via upstream (which might be more
complicated but also a way..)

>> Just a suggestion: If its only about privacy, a tradeoff could
>> be: only visible for LIRs in lirportal (?)
> 
> That may be acceptable, at least more so than making it
> uncontrolledly public.

I could live with that, as long as abuse-mails don't end up in a
fictious, never existing mailbox ;)

Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlB/ITQACgkQaWRHV2kMuAJeIQCfdm0mXW8XFEGbGR5+gofBkXkq
gNUAnROcA9zHsew0BTb9Tz5DgEL+PKBc
=8AhU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----