Re: [anti-spam-wg@localhost] Contacts

[Gert Doering <]

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:21:56AM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
> >> Why would anyone be annoyed by being asked to behave responsibly?
> > There's no way a LIR can ensure that all data is correct 100% of the
> > time -
> 
> Nor, I think, have any of the proposals required that.  

This wasn't so clear.  At least not to me.

> Only that when
> errors are brought to the attention of the delegating authority, that
> they are corrected promptly, or the delegating authority accepts
> responsibility for correcting abuse from within the space, or the space
> deallocated.

That's something we try to do anyway (but we're not proactively searching
for stale data, just updating things that we notice - or are notified
about - that are broken).

> > Commercial relations are not "parent-children" relations, and it's
> > not our job to educate our customers in such a way.
> 
> No, but it _is_ your job to make sure the address sapce you have been
> assigned is not used irresponsibly.  If you don't require your
> customers to maintain working contacts, you must take on that function
> yourself; anything less is irresponsible.  

I agree.  In the case of our network space, that would be straightforward
- if the more-specific inetnum has stale contact data, the encompassing
object will have our data, and this data is correct.

> (Which was where we came in;
> the RIPE NCC as not only being irresponsible in this respect but is
> strongly resisting fixing it.)

Usually the RIPE NCC is spending some effort to ensure that they
have up-to-date contact information at the LIRs.  In recent times, this
has been more difficult than usual, due to all those people and
companies disappearing.

[..]
> > it just means "you get to hit the people that have had their
> > resources stolen by spammers more quickly".
> 
> More like "get to call address space owners to account for how their
> resources are being used to damage the rest of the net".  

Usually they notice pretty quickly ("my line to the 'net is so slow 
today and e-mail isn't working either").

> I don't expect any provider to be spammer-free.  What I *do* want is for
> providers to kick spammers off promptly, 

So do I.  But then, there's no legal contract between RIPE and the LIR
to enforce that.

> and there are only a few that
> do that.  There's a rogue registrar - not just provider, but
> *registrar* - up right now whose containing RIPE netblock has been
> sitting on their thumbs for well over a year (the first complaint I can
> lay ready hand on is dated 2001-08-25).  And nobody is willing to call
> them to account for hosting a spam-supporter despite repeated
> notifications, over a long period, of the problem.

There is no mechanism in the RIPE land to force them to disconnect
spammers.  The only thing that will work is *peer pressure*.

Even if RIPE were to take their address space away - they can't stop
them from announcing it (if they are really rogue).  Wrong approach.

[..]
> > Your solution requires cooperation from the majority of the LIRs, and
> > I know at least one that will object.
> 
> So now at least we know _who_ objects to being required to act
> responsibly, even if we don't have an answer to _why_ - the closest I
> saw to an explanation of why was something I would summarize as "an
> exaggeration of your proposal would be more expensive than we happen to
> feel like supporting".

I think it boils down to that, yes.  The way I read it, it was excessive.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  55671 (55600)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299