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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Suresh Ramasubramanian
ops.lists at gmail.com
Thu Jul 28 12:19:17 CEST 2011
Slippery slope is a rather poor logical fallacy to bring up Nobody is obligating RIPE to treat anything as conclusive evidence Simply that they do some proactive monitoring instead of waiting for complaints And that they have some published SOP for dealing with and recovering hijacked ranges, or those obtained under false pretences [SOP != policy, goes a bit beyond that] On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele at blacknight.ie> wrote: > > On 28 Jul 2011, at 09:48, Frank Gadegast wrote: >>> >> >> Not at all out of scope. > > I think it is out of scope > > It is a slippery slope > > Next you'll have people demanding that RIPE check what content is published on IP blocks .. > > > >> >> You are right saying, that a listing does not proof anything, >> but its a good indication (like I sayd above). > > Not necessarily. > > There are a multitude of reasons why an IP block can get listed - while it *might* be an indicator that you or I can use for our own *private* networks, it is not something that an organization like RIPE should be doing, as there is absolutely no standard or certification of DNS blacklists. > > >> >> RIPE NCC could ask the member, whats going on with that netblock, >> if they see a listing. I guess a lot of members do not >> even realize, that their old netblocks are routed >> somewhere else. >> >> RIPE NCC has to check the use of assigned netblocks anyway >> (if I understand some rules right). > > No - the "usage" is related to the assignment rules > > >> It cannot be that >> assigned netblocks are used by non-members or members >> the netblock wasnt assigned to … > > Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean here > > regards > > Michele > > Mr Michele Neylon > Blacknight Solutions > Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection > ICANN Accredited Registrar > http://www.blacknight.com/ > http://blog.blacknight.com/ > http://blacknight.mobi/ > http://mneylon.tel > Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 > US: 213-233-1612 > UK: 0844 484 9361 > Locall: 1850 929 929 > Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon > ------------------------------- > Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty > Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Hijacked netblocks - any SOP for these?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]