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 If an assignment is made for a specific purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer valid."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.
Then the RIPENCC problem, it seems to me, is that "no longer valid" ranges remain in use for a long period of time. This seems to indicate that there is no effective mechanism to enforce the rules. Indeed, what is the semantic meaning of "no longer valid" if people continue to use those ranges for extended periods of time ? "Invalid" with respect to what ? RIPE-582 does not seem to address this point. If it does, please point me to the relevant section, or to another document that discuss this point.
At the end, the problem seems to boil down to these questions:
"Does the RIPE Community really want to have resources defined as "invalid", yet live without a real working mechanism to have these invalid resources claimed back and reassigned ? If not, would the introduction of such an enforcement mechanism go against the acceptable operational limits for a RIR ? And if yes, what is the purpose of defining rules that can not be enforced, and hence resulting in bad guys getting as much resources as they like by making false statements ?"
Sadly, these questions remained mostly unanswered so far. I am starting to think that perhaps no attempts are made to classify IPv4 assignments as "invalid" according to RIPE-582, section 6.6. I will be glad to know about a counterexample. furio