Hi Jeroen

Your terminology is very confusing. You talk only about allocations
and sub-allocations and keep referring to INETNUMs. You never once
mention assignments. So my first question is what exactly is it that
you want to be optional?

The current policy says:

3.0 Goals of the Internet Registry System
...4.Registration: The provision of a public registry documenting
address space allocations and assignments must exist. This is
necessary to ensure uniqueness and to provide information for Internet
troubleshooting at all levels.
----
4.0 Registration Requirements
All assignments and allocations must be registered in the RIPE
Database. This is necessary to ensure uniqueness and to support
network operations.
----
6.2 Network Infrastructure and End User Networks
...When an End User has a network using public address space this must
be registered separately with the contact details of the End User.
----

The message from the current policy is very clear. End Users operating
public networks must be documented in the RIPE Database. There are two
historical reasons given, uniqueness AND network operations. You have
focused your argument on the fact that uniqueness of allocations is no
longer needed. But you have ignored the other stated reason. Using the
database to contact network operators for troubleshooting is one of
the original purposes of the database. So if you now want this
information to be optional and entered if an LIR feels like it, you
need to justify why internet troubleshooting is no longer necessary at
an End User network level.

When we talk about the purposes of the database we are not talking
about the purposes of the database as a container. We mean the
purposes of the data contained within the database. Over time this
data in the RIPE Database about End Users has been used, for example,
by LEAs and other investigators to identify the users as well as for
internet operational problem solving.

The Database Task Force acknowledged in their report (ripe-767) that
there are now different stakeholders who use the RIPE Database for
different reasons:

2. The Difference between the RIPE Database and the RIPE Registry
The information disclosed in the RIPE Database aims to facilitate
cooperation and coordination between network operators and other
stakeholders for a variety of operational tasks, including
troubleshooting and preventing outages.
---
3. Why are we reviewing the RIPE Database functionality now?
The RIPE Database provides essential information to members of the
RIPE community, which helps them to keep individual networks and the
overall Internet running in their region. Many stakeholders depend on
the accuracy and availability of the data stored in the database to do
their job properly, especially regarding cybersecurity. Some database
users, such as ISPs or IXPs, have been part of the RIPE community for
years, while others are relatively new, such as Law Enforcement
Agencies (LEAs) or regulators. These user groups have different needs
and expectations regarding the database
---
5.1 Data accuracy
The data added to the database should be accurate to ensure uniqueness
of Internet number resources and to provide reliable registration
information to all parties involved in network operations. For
example, contact details or information about a specific assignment
should be accurate to facilitate contact with and identification of
the organisation holding the assignment.
---
6.4 Purpose: Facilitating Internet operations and coordination
The RIPE Database should facilitate communication and cooperation
among stakeholders for the following reasons:
-Operational issues such as measuring or troubleshooting networks
-Handling abuse cases, supporting the handling of cyber incidents and
supporting LEA investigations
---

Unfortunately, the Task Force did not attempt to identify most of
these 'other' stakeholders or what data they need or why. So we are
left in a position where it has been acknowledged that many different
stakeholders exist that need data currently provided by the public IP
address registry, but who or what is unknown. There may well now be
stakeholders with very legitimate reasons for needing accurate
assignment data. Until we know more about these stakeholders we cannot
make informed decisions about the content of the database. But the
Task Force then went on to make a recommendation about assignments
based on the rationale "A core reason for registration of IPv4 PA
assignments was to justify an LIR’s need for additional IPv4 allocated
address space. However, since the RIPE NCC ran out of IPv4 in 2019,
this policy has been rendered obsolete." Just as you are doing in this
proposal, they conveniently ignored the main reason(s) for documenting
assignments and focused on one obsolete reason.

The Task Force recommendation was "that as resource holders have full
responsibility over the registration of their IPv4 PA assignment(s),
they are free to make assignments or not." Which is also the basis of
your proposal. The people entering data into a public IP address
registry are not necessarily the ones who should be able to decide
what data must be contained in the registry. You need to consider the
requirements of different aspects of the industry and even the needs
of the wider (public) community (the stakeholders).

I do not think we are currently in a position to make an informed
decision on this Task Force recommendation or your policy proposal.

cheers
denis
co-chair DB-WG


On Fri, 7 Oct 2022 at 16:31, Jeroen Lauwers <jlauwers@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Denis,
>
> Again we are back to asking the question, "What is the purpose of the
> RIPE Database in 2022?". I know this is like the elephant in the room.
> I know most people look the other way every time I mention this topic.
>
>
> This policy proposal is not about the goal of the database itl is just about how far we obligate LIRs in filling in information for inetnum objects and how much freedom we give the LIR to decide it by themself. So technically the goal of the database stays the same.
>
> BUT it is so fundamental to many discussions we are having. For
> example, is the database still purely (or even primarily) only for
> 'operational purposes'? A term used so often that, like so many other
> terms used in this industry, is not even defined anywhere. Is using
> the content of the RIPE Database to stop the use of an IP address for
> criminal  activity an 'operational purpose'. If someone is operating a
> network using a block of IP addresses and abusing other users of the
> internet, then surely knowing who is using that block of addresses and
> being able to contact them has 'operational' value.
>
>
> For sure we always need to keep this in mind. And I think it would be a good subject to discuss in the database working group. But so far I don’t see any reasons to be insecure about this after changing this policy.
>
>
> As Sander said, knowing how much of an allocation is in use was a side
> effect of this policy. Knowing who is operating a network on a block
> of addresses, and being able to contact them, is the real purpose of
> this policy requirement to document assignments. If we allow LIRs to
> choose what info to add to the database, those LIRs that knowingly
> provide resources and services to abusive end users will obviously
> choose not to document it. That may be used as a selling feature to
> abusive end users, to obscure and delay their identification. Whilst
> most LIRs take abuse seriously we all know there are some that don't.
>
>
> You are totally right. That is why this is only about inetnum objects. The LIR gets still obligated by the terms and conditions to fill in enough information for contacting efficient the maintainer as also By the Abuse Contact Management in the RIPE Database policy for having an abuse contact.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Jeroen

--

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg