[address-policy-wg] Bogus Prefixes (was Enabling Methods ...)

On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0000, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > 
> > Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure
> > that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended
> > purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.).
> 
> 	does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix
> 	it hands out is globally routable?

Quite the opposite. I think all the RIRs have a consistent stance
here: "caveat emptor".

(Well, not "emptor" because they claim one does not buy address space,
but I think I've discussed that...)

OTOH, in my experience the RIRs do *care* about their members'
problems. They do help people who are getting filtered inappropriately
with efforts to get filters removed. And the RIPE NCC runs the
"de-bogonising" effort:

http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/

I think this is all as it should be.

On the Internet, we find that if you place the cost and the benefit at
the same place, things get solved.  So the LIR that gets the space
must "clean up" the space (cost), but then can use it for whatever
cool Internet things it wants (benefit).

Having the RIRs take responsibility breaks the cost/benefit
connection, so they will spend more than some LIR need, and less than
others on the effort.

--
Shane