michael.dillon@bt.com wrote (>): I previously wrote (>>): (It is really handy that when you make a comment about something somebody says that you actually name the person so that the person can reply, it solves me having to read way too much email)_
Even though this will give the NCC a bit more work to do, I do support this proposal. One of the main reasons being that the allocations will remain to be properly registered and are thus accountable.
I disagree that this will make anyone more accountable.
I didn't say "more", it will remain as it is now. If there was a free invisible trade and what is in whois would not match real life then it would become a real mess and none of the information would be clear.
As long as addresses are in use on the Internet, tools such as traceroute make it possible to identify the source of traffic, and the organization which is actually using an IP address block. In fact, I am currently sorting out an issue with SAIX in South Africa announcing, and passing traffic for someone who is using one of our IP address ranges. The fact that our address range is correctly registered in ARIN's database did not stop someone from using it on the Internet, and the fact that the user is not in any RIR database, does not prevent us from solving the problem.
Analogy time: That you own a house on paper, doesn't mean that others can't use it by just breaking in and living there. You will have to enforce that differently. Route objects in the IRR's, S-BGP etc come to mind. Properly managing your network is the main thing there. Also traceroute doesn't help a thing already for 10 years due to nice tricks like Rotorouter http://seclists.org/bugtraq/1998/Aug/0091.html ;)
In fact, I suspect that most companies don't even care to make the actual user of an IP address range accountable. If the next link in the chain is accountable, i.e. the upstream of this non-accountable IP address user, then the problem can be quickly resolved.
True, which is why it is mostly good enough to have a responsive abuse contact for a block, and not an unresponsive end-user who doesn't even know what it is all about. (Fighting and avoiding abuse is my prime interest in proper records at the RIR's)
Therefore, accountability is not necessary in all cases. At the same time, RIPE can only affect accountability very indirectly with correct database entries. The history of the RIPE database and other RIR databases shows that they don't have a big impact on accountability and they also do not have a great track record for accuracy. I just do not see a connection between greater (or lesser) accountability, and a more accurate (or less accurate) RIPE database.
In cases where you see a problem with the accuracy of the database, contact the NCC and they can look into it and in most cases quickly resolve it. That is what I do when I see something funny, which does happen so every now and then. As for saying that this proposal doesn't help, nonsense, it keeps the information correct, which helps a lot more than not having that information at all. Greets, Jeroen