Re: [address-policy-wg] [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity. There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough. Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote: SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*.
-- Sergey
Dear Sergey, I agree with Sergey. Every time when we have any troubles with PI-networks - we are receiving answer that end-user fully responsible for this IPs and LIR can't do anything with this resources. So doesn't make sense to show who is sponsoring LIR. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. Team 15.10.2012 21:52 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а): I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity. There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough. Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote: SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*.
-- Sergey
I agree with Sergey. Sponsoring LIR can't do anything with PI net, i.e. this publication can't help to stop spam from this net, for example. But it can get harm to the business as shows the link to clients, number of it, rough income, etc. Maybe it is good for EU, but definitely NOT good for ex-USSR countries. On 15. 10. 2012, at 20:45, Sergey Myasoedov <sergey@devnull.ru> wrote:
I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not responsible for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity.
There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI assignment. And this is enough.
Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote:
SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4 PI is hopefully allowed once again. SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*.
-- Sergey
participants (3)
-
LeaderTelecom B.V. -
Max Tulyev -
Sergey Myasoedov