On Jul 1, 2013 12:58 PM, "furio ercolessi" <furio+as@spin.it> wrote:

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> HI,
>
> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:43:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text:
> > >
> > > "6.6 Validity of an Assignment
> > >  All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the
> > >  assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly
> > >  registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific
> > >  purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer
> > >  valid."
> > >
> > > Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are
> > > classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the
> > > motivation given to get the assignment.
>
> This paragraph mentions *assignments*, which is (in the context of LIRs)
> what a LIR gives to it's customers.
>
> So indeed, if a customer is lying to the LIR, the assignment falls back
> to the LIR (which makes a difference when the LIR's allocation is full
> and they can't get more space because their assignments are not valid).
>
> This paragraph does not apply to the *allocation* give to the LIR from
> the RIPE NCC.

Sure, I fully understand that.

The question remains.  Who is supposed to classify the range as
invalid ? Are invalid assignments revoked by RIPE NCC ? If not, what
the 6.6 wording is there for ?  What happens if an assignment is revoked
and the customer continues to use the same allocated and now unassigned
space as if nothing happened ?

furio ercolessi