This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tom Vest
tvest at pch.net
Fri Jun 13 13:44:23 CEST 2008
On Jun 13, 2008, at 7:18 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote: > >> Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I >> do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that >> the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are >> thus accountable. > > I disagree that this will make anyone more accountable. As long as > addresses are in use on the Internet, tools such as traceroute make it > possible to identify the source of traffic, and the organization which > is actually using an IP address block. In fact, I am currently sorting > out an issue with SAIX in South Africa announcing, and passing traffic > for someone who is using one of our IP address ranges. The fact that > our > address range is correctly registered in ARIN's database did not stop > someone from using it on the Internet, and the fact that the user is > not > in any RIR database, does not prevent us from solving the problem. > > In fact, I suspect that most companies don't even care to make the > actual user of an IP address range accountable. If the next link in > the > chain is accountable, i.e. the upstream of this non-accountable IP > address user, then the problem can be quickly resolved. > > Therefore, accountability is not necessary in all cases. At the same > time, RIPE can only affect accountability very indirectly with correct > database entries. The history of the RIPE database and other RIR > databases shows that they don't have a big impact on accountability > and > they also do not have a great track record for accuracy. I just do not > see a connection between greater (or lesser) accountability, and a > more > accurate (or less accurate) RIPE database. > > --Michael Dillon Hi Michael, Does that suggest that accountability and accuracy would be improved if everyone had the same (presumably more accountable) integrated upstream provider / database maintainer? TV
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]