[ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2

Subject: Re: [ncc-services-wg] legacy holders paying for registration services and 2012-07v2 Date: Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 02:30:38PM +0000 Quoting Nick Hilliard (nick at netability.ie):
> On 04/02/2013 22:12, Måns Nilsson wrote:
> > The "completely estranged LRH holder organisation" is not that common, I
> > believe. Wasting electrons on this corner case is not fruitful.
> 
> Problem is, I'm not sure it's a corner case; nor am I sure that the
> squatters are corner cases, nor the abandoned address blocks.
> 
> Has the RIPE NCC done any preliminary analysis of the ERX space in terms of:
> 
> - rough consistency of link between inetnum: owner and mntner
> - when was the last time the resources were updated
> - potential LIR association
> - whether prefix is visible in dfz
> 
> I realise that this is very ill-specified.
> 
> This might be useful in quantifying how much effort it would be worth
> expending in what you and Hank refer to as "corner cases", but which I
> would feel were more common.

It's been mentioned (and with good backing I believe, I've
seen it from the inside) that a lot of old assignments are to RE
networks. Most of these are reasonably well maintained. My own limited
knowledge of commercial entities having assignments points to similar
data. Mostly. (both I and my wife work at corporations with ERX blocks
-- my block has a current maintainer and a route object, her block has
ERX info which still is correct, at least points to the right company)

My belief thus is, that most of these entries are good enough that they serve
a purpose. Some of them are excellent. A better picture can probably be
had by some more dedicated data-mining.

I am quite upset with a heavy-handed policy being crafted to force every
possible net into a rigid form. Yes, I've argued that the RIR database
needs to be complete. And it is in fact so important that estranging
(which heavy policies will lead to, I'm afraid) is detrimental. 

This has excellent prior art, btw: 

	All participants agree that there should be some sort of
	registration of the networks taking part in the European IP
	net. This way any problems that may occur can be signaled to
	the responsible person. It was stressed that this registration
	activity is just a matter of keeping the registry up to date:
	in no way it should constitute some sort of authority. A 'whois'
	style of information service was suggested as a useful tool to
	access registry information. (Action: Anders Hillbo)

		(from the minutes of RIPE meeting #1, as read from:
		 http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-meetings/ripe-1)

Ultimately, the NCC and the other RIRen have no actual power over
early registrations/allocations. They can at most humbly request that
holders register their allocations in the most suitable RIR. And a RIR
should encourage and welcome this. If the holder, and the holder only,
feels that a closer relation to a given RIR would be proper (and I can
think of a lot of good, valid reasons for this) then there might surface
a need for a more formal relationship. (with the RIR or one of the LIRen)
With this in place, there might be good reason for associating costs or
contractual obligations with this value-add service. But the initial
allocation is IMNSHO untouchable and is not to form the base for such
a scheme.

I support the policy proposal as it stands. Having said that, minor
changes as discussed here on the list are probably useful.
-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
Thank god!! ... It's HENNY YOUNGMAN!!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/ncc-services-wg/attachments/20130206/c3606218/attachment.sig>