[anti-abuse-wg] New Abuse Information on RIPE NCC Website

And what if the LIR is complicit in this activity, to the extent of
providing IP space no questions asked?
 On Jul 1, 2013 12:58 PM, "furio ercolessi" <furio+as at spin.it> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> > HI,
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:43:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text:
> > > >
> > > > "6.6 Validity of an Assignment
> > > >  All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which
> the
> > > >  assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly
> > > >  registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a
> specific
> > > >  purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no
> longer
> > > >  valid."
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are
> > > > classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the
> > > > motivation given to get the assignment.
> >
> > This paragraph mentions *assignments*, which is (in the context of LIRs)
> > what a LIR gives to it's customers.
> >
> > So indeed, if a customer is lying to the LIR, the assignment falls back
> > to the LIR (which makes a difference when the LIR's allocation is full
> > and they can't get more space because their assignments are not valid).
> >
> > This paragraph does not apply to the *allocation* give to the LIR from
> > the RIPE NCC.
>
> Sure, I fully understand that.
>
> The question remains.  Who is supposed to classify the range as
> invalid ? Are invalid assignments revoked by RIPE NCC ? If not, what
> the 6.6 wording is there for ?  What happens if an assignment is revoked
> and the customer continues to use the same allocated and now unassigned
> space as if nothing happened ?
>
> furio ercolessi
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20130701/cb390310/attachment.html>