Hi, On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 05:03:40PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: [..]
in this discussion - which is about trying to ensure that spammers don't get /32 and larger v6 netblocks with the same ease they're acquiring /15s and /16s.
This is about the gist of the current dispute, I'd say. As long as "the spammers" are providing correct corporate documents, and operate within their legal framework, I don't see any way to *deny* them IPv4/IPv6 addresses. "Sending lots of mail" might be a perfectly legitimate business in some country in the RIPE NCC service region, and as such, "need to use IP addresses for my legitimate business" is appropriate for a needs-based allocation system... "Some people do not like what other people do with their addresses" is not something the RIPE NCC can operate on - the RIRs (have to) operate on documented need, not on reputation. Now, faked identity data, faked corporate documents, a judge that decides that a given entity is violating the law - that's sufficient, of course, as can be seen in the NCC draft document about closures. Gert Doering -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279