Suresh, On Monday, 2012-10-08 19:22:10 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
The data is out there and has been analyzed in multiple places.
However, in the interests of sanity - and so that this issue does not get ignored by pointing out where all it is not relevant to RIPE NCC's mandate or out of scope of any RIR .. [such as domain names for example, you want ICANN for that, and the UDRP] ..
While the anti-abuse working group does help create RIPE policy, that is not the only thing it does. I had a quick look at the charter: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/groups/wg/anti-abuse And I didn't see anything about limiting discussion or work to issues related to the RIPE NCC. I think that the working group is free to discuss anything the participants want to, as long as it is related to abuse on the Internet.
Can you please focus on
1. How many of these resolve to IPs in the RIPE coverage area 2. How many of them are actual RIPE allocations to malicious entities, rather than compromised IPs for example?
#2 in particular.
Having said that, I do agree that your questions are interesting. They point to an area that might result in the RIPE NCC being able to help reduce this kind of shady marketing! :) Cheers, -- Shane