[address-policy-wg] 2007-08 Review Period extended until 9 July 2008 (Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources)

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote (>):

I previously wrote (>>):

(It is really handy that when you make a comment about something 
somebody says that you actually name the person so that the person can 
reply, it solves me having to read way too much email)_

>> 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.

I didn't say "more", it will remain as it is now. If there was a free 
invisible trade and what is in whois would not match real life then it 
would become a real mess and none of the information would be clear.

> 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.

Analogy time: That you own a house on paper, doesn't mean that others 
can't use it by just breaking in and living there.

You will have to enforce that differently. Route objects in the IRR's, 
S-BGP etc come to mind. Properly managing your network is the main thing 
there.

Also traceroute doesn't help a thing already for 10 years due to nice 
tricks like Rotorouter http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1998/Aug/0091.html ;)

> 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.

True, which is why it is mostly good enough to have a responsive abuse 
contact for a block, and not an unresponsive end-user who doesn't even 
know what it is all about.

(Fighting and avoiding abuse is my prime interest in proper records at 
the RIR's)

> 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.

In cases where you see a problem with the accuracy of the database, 
contact the NCC and they can look into it and in most cases quickly 
resolve it. That is what I do when I see something funny, which does 
happen so every now and then.

As for saying that this proposal doesn't help, nonsense, it keeps the 
information correct, which helps a lot more than not having that 
information at all.

Greets,
  Jeroen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20080613/cf91f594/attachment.sig>