Re: [anti-abuse-wg] Draft Anti-Abuse WG Minutes ? RIPE 61
I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention elsewhere. 1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/Sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE - mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away by removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post. 2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB, discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people in the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair. A much wider consensus should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this list if not at the plenary. This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are in the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora, but don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have been consulted before this. Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this opportunity to comment. About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues. First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns people vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own organizations who will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I won't speak for Paul Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with you about your comment, even after its rephrase). Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ police" that I keep hearing cited. It would be fun indeed if a bank manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that he's not the document police .. That presentation I saw discussed is what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses, plural, have bolted. That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned. It is high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way to deal with such a situation. srs Peter Koch wrote:
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 03:47:42PM +0000, Brian Nisbet wrote:
Peter Koch said the session was already overrun by 15 minutes and this delicate issue should be resolved at another time.
I'd like to clarify that my point was that this topic was placed under AOB _and_ mostly dealt with during overtime, which, absence of written process and procedures nonwithstanding, did not meet my expectations and experiences of appropriateness given delicacy. That said, I consider the issue closed.
JD Falk wrote:
On Dec 15, 2010, at 3:15 PM, Shane Kerr wrote:
I think that my point was that there is a disconnect between people working on anti-abuse and the ISPs, not about the Anti-Abuse Working Group or its participants. I might not have said that of course...
Many people who work for ISPs would agree. It's often simply a matter of scale and imagination....
Suresh, Thanks for your comments, I've responded below. If you would like to discuss this further, either on list or in private email, we can, of course, do so. "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 02:38:
I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention elsewhere.
1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/Sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE - mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away by removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post.
The actions taken in Rome were in no way an attempt to wish away problems by removing Richard from a co-chair post. Richard is still more than welcome to participate in the RIPE community, just as he did before he was a co-chair. I do not intend to re-paste sections of the minutes here where the reasons are detailed, but this action was not brought about by one blog post, or simply criticism of the RIPE NCC.
2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB, discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people in the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair. A much wider consensus should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this list if not at the plenary.
The timing was less than ideal, but again, I stand by what I said at the meeting. In addition, the room has far more than 'very few people' in it during these proceedings. Please note that nobody actually objected to the proposal, only the timing.
This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are in the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora, but don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have been consulted before this.
Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this opportunity to comment.
Remote participation was possible, with a live video feed. This comment, some two months after RIPE 61, is the first comment that has been made about this. And while I am not in any way ignoring it I don't think it's unfair to say that it suggests the WG were either in support or ambivalent towards what happened?
About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues.
First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns people vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own organizations who will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I won't speak for Paul Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with you about your comment, even after its rephrase).
The AA-WG, like every WG, can only really work if participation comes from as many interested areas of the community as possible. Everyone has disagreements, as you say, but I never wish the impression to be given that people do not have a voice or are not wanted. As I said in Rome, I'm aware of the possible perception around what happened and I'm hoping the WG and I will be able to act to dispel them.
Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ police" that I keep hearing cited. It would be fun indeed if a bank manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that he's not the document police .. That presentation I saw discussed is what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses, plural, have bolted.
Things are, truly, never as simple as they seem. There are many aspects to that particular line, and hoping that the community, along with the NCC, can and are working to improve the situation.
That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned. It is high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way to deal with such a situation.
I will finish by restating that my reasons for this, and the reasons of those who discussed it with me, were not based on shooting the messenger, however it may look. I cannot, of course, empirically prove that, but I'm hoping that you may accept my word and that the actions of the WG both now and in the future will back that up. Brian.
Hi Brian Glad to continue this, and I respect your reasons that you state. But to be brief, Richard Cox has been a valued contributor at more than one anti abuse forum - and his comments were perhaps a sign of his frustration. As for his hiatus from the abuse WG - I do know he has had some health issues in the recent past, and so may not have been able to participate in the WG regularly. All the same, I would strongly repeat my request that the RIPE NCC as well as this WG work closely with anti abuse organizations including spamhaus (and of course MAAWG) to mitigate these problems. There's a maawg later this year (october 24-27) in Paris where I am sure a discussion of how to work together with the abuse teams at SPs to help mitigate the problem of scarce v4 resources being allocated to malicious actors (and perhaps a focus on what V6 netblocks are being acquired by them, and what to do about those). As for the internet police comment, it has a long and storied history - and the context in which it was made might not possibly be the same context in which we find ourselves. There is of course a balance to be struck between security and privacy, however we do have to consider, and guard against, the fact that the same measures that extend privacy to legitimate organizations will be abused by malicious actors. The problem is that all too often, I find it being treated as an article of faith. thanks [and sorry for the double post earlier] --srs On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Suresh,
Thanks for your comments, I've responded below. If you would like to discuss this further, either on list or in private email, we can, of course, do so.
"Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 02:38:
I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention elsewhere.
1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/Sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE - mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away by removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post.
The actions taken in Rome were in no way an attempt to wish away problems by removing Richard from a co-chair post. Richard is still more than welcome to participate in the RIPE community, just as he did before he was a co-chair. I do not intend to re-paste sections of the minutes here where the reasons are detailed, but this action was not brought about by one blog post, or simply criticism of the RIPE NCC.
2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB, discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people in the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair. A much wider consensus should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this list if not at the plenary.
The timing was less than ideal, but again, I stand by what I said at the meeting. In addition, the room has far more than 'very few people' in it during these proceedings. Please note that nobody actually objected to the proposal, only the timing.
This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are in the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora, but don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have been consulted before this.
Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this opportunity to comment.
Remote participation was possible, with a live video feed. This comment, some two months after RIPE 61, is the first comment that has been made about this. And while I am not in any way ignoring it I don't think it's unfair to say that it suggests the WG were either in support or ambivalent towards what happened?
About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues.
First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns people vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own organizations who will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I won't speak for Paul Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with you about your comment, even after its rephrase).
The AA-WG, like every WG, can only really work if participation comes from as many interested areas of the community as possible. Everyone has disagreements, as you say, but I never wish the impression to be given that people do not have a voice or are not wanted. As I said in Rome, I'm aware of the possible perception around what happened and I'm hoping the WG and I will be able to act to dispel them.
Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ police" that I keep hearing cited. It would be fun indeed if a bank manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that he's not the document police .. That presentation I saw discussed is what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses, plural, have bolted.
Things are, truly, never as simple as they seem. There are many aspects to that particular line, and hoping that the community, along with the NCC, can and are working to improve the situation.
That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned. It is high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way to deal with such a situation.
I will finish by restating that my reasons for this, and the reasons of those who discussed it with me, were not based on shooting the messenger, however it may look. I cannot, of course, empirically prove that, but I'm hoping that you may accept my word and that the actions of the WG both now and in the future will back that up.
Brian.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Suresh, I might be a little less brief than you, apologies. Again, I don't wish to rehash the discussion in the minutes (along with video and stenography if anyone would like to watch the full 30 minutes), but it was my impression, and the impression of the other WG chairs, the Chair of RIPE and the Chair of the NCC Executive Board that we had made multiple attempts to engage with Richard about these issues. The standard response to someone in the RIPE community saying "This thing should be changed," is to ask how they would like it to be changed. This is the start of the policy development process. Each time Richard said something should be changed he was asked that question and the process was explained, at no point was a policy presented. So, over time, Richard appeared to be getting more frustrated, while many people felt they were offering him at least a path to resolve those frustrations, but nothing ever happened. I'm not saying a policy proposal would have been a silver bullet, but it is, at least, a start, and something to hang a conversation off. And while this was going on comments from himself and others inside the CyberCrime Working Party, along with internal RIPE NCC discussions and other catalysts were having a direct effect, leading to the RIPE NCC closure and deregistration procedure as presented at RIPE 61 in Rome (see http://www.ripe.net/legal/Closure-of-LIR-and-deregistration-of-INRs_final-dr...). I should also say that Richard's occasional absenses from RIPE meetings due to his health was not a factor in the decision, despite being raised from the floor. The RIPE NCC, along with the RIPE community, has been taking steps to work more closely with the organisations like MAAWG and the NCC presented at the Barcelona meeting. That cooperation will continue. The Paris meeting is directly before the RIPE 63 meeting in Vienna, so I'm not sure who will be able to attend, but such events are more clearly on the radar at this point. As a final note on the notion of Internet Police and other such terms, it is a cloudy and much bandied phrase, but there is an important point to make. The RIPE NCC service region, and the region from which most of the community originates, comprises of some 78 countries with widely varying laws and cultures. It is an extremely interesting region in which to work and while I would not for one moment suggest that we can do nothing, not even close, it is a very important point to remember in any anti-abuse conversation. Brian. "Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 13:50:
Hi Brian
Glad to continue this, and I respect your reasons that you state.
But to be brief, Richard Cox has been a valued contributor at more than one anti abuse forum - and his comments were perhaps a sign of his frustration.
As for his hiatus from the abuse WG - I do know he has had some health issues in the recent past, and so may not have been able to participate in the WG regularly.
All the same, I would strongly repeat my request that the RIPE NCC as well as this WG work closely with anti abuse organizations including spamhaus (and of course MAAWG) to mitigate these problems. There's a maawg later this year (october 24-27) in Paris where I am sure a discussion of how to work together with the abuse teams at SPs to help mitigate the problem of scarce v4 resources being allocated to malicious actors (and perhaps a focus on what V6 netblocks are being acquired by them, and what to do about those).
As for the internet police comment, it has a long and storied history - and the context in which it was made might not possibly be the same context in which we find ourselves. There is of course a balance to be struck between security and privacy, however we do have to consider, and guard against, the fact that the same measures that extend privacy to legitimate organizations will be abused by malicious actors. The problem is that all too often, I find it being treated as an article of faith.
thanks [and sorry for the double post earlier]
--srs
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Brian Nisbet<brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
Suresh,
Thanks for your comments, I've responded below. If you would like to discuss this further, either on list or in private email, we can, of course, do so.
"Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 01/02/2011 02:38:
I am rather late to this thread as it was just drawn to my attention elsewhere.
1. Richard Cox's concerns were entirely valid, and the abuse issues documented at http://www.spamhaus.org/Sbl/listings.lasso?isp=RIPE - mostly PI / PA blocks, several as large as /15, can't be wished away by removing critics of this WG from a co-chair post.
The actions taken in Rome were in no way an attempt to wish away problems by removing Richard from a co-chair post. Richard is still more than welcome to participate in the RIPE community, just as he did before he was a co-chair. I do not intend to re-paste sections of the minutes here where the reasons are detailed, but this action was not brought about by one blog post, or simply criticism of the RIPE NCC.
2. I would echo Peter's concerns about this being brought up as AOB, discussed (or rather, not discussed) in overtime with very few people in the room, leading to the removal of a co-chair. A much wider consensus should have been obtained - at least by discussion on this list if not at the plenary.
The timing was less than ideal, but again, I stand by what I said at the meeting. In addition, the room has far more than 'very few people' in it during these proceedings. Please note that nobody actually objected to the proposal, only the timing.
This was not consensus. WG participants (and I count several who are in the anti abuse community, engage regularly with RIRs at other fora, but don't typically have the budget to travel to RIPE) should have been consulted before this.
Yes, nobody else had much to say about this removal, so I'll take this opportunity to comment.
Remote participation was possible, with a live video feed. This comment, some two months after RIPE 61, is the first comment that has been made about this. And while I am not in any way ignoring it I don't think it's unfair to say that it suggests the WG were either in support or ambivalent towards what happened?
About Richard Cox's removal and about two other meta issues.
First - the prevailing attitude I have seen from at least some participants (this is not "us vs them" in terms of routing / dns people vs abuse people .. you have colleagues in your own organizations who will disagree with your views - especially Shane, I won't speak for Paul Vixie but I am not at all sure he'd agree with you about your comment, even after its rephrase).
The AA-WG, like every WG, can only really work if participation comes from as many interested areas of the community as possible. Everyone has disagreements, as you say, but I never wish the impression to be given that people do not have a voice or are not wanted. As I said in Rome, I'm aware of the possible perception around what happened and I'm hoping the WG and I will be able to act to dispel them.
Second - the mantra, meme, fallacy etc of the "we are not the XYZ police" that I keep hearing cited. It would be fun indeed if a bank manager sanctioned a loan for say a quarter of a million dollars (lets say comparable to an allocation for a /15) and then baldly state that he's not the document police .. That presentation I saw discussed is what I'd call partially shutting the barn door long after the horses, plural, have bolted.
Things are, truly, never as simple as they seem. There are many aspects to that particular line, and hoping that the community, along with the NCC, can and are working to improve the situation.
That damage's been done, a lot of IP space has been poisoned. It is high time to realize that shooting the messenger is not the best way to deal with such a situation.
I will finish by restating that my reasons for this, and the reasons of those who discussed it with me, were not based on shooting the messenger, however it may look. I cannot, of course, empirically prove that, but I'm hoping that you may accept my word and that the actions of the WG both now and in the future will back that up.
Brian.
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet@heanet.ie> wrote:
The RIPE NCC service region, and the region from which most of the community originates, comprises of some 78 countries with widely varying laws and cultures. It is an extremely interesting region in which to work and while I would not for one moment suggest that we can do nothing, not even close, it is a very important point to remember in any anti-abuse conversation.
This is a valid point and that's why I'm glad to see Wout de Natris, Uwe Rasmussen and others who do have a background in international regulatory policy and law enforcement involved in this and related RIPE WGs. My only point is that far more could be done - and this should have been done far earlier to avoid the tensions generated so far, with active and informed people from other groups with the same focus having to vent their frustration in this manner. Richard, and before that Andy Auld of SOCA, who I admit could have made his point more diplomatically. Auld said -
""If we were being harsh, we could say that Ripe has received criminal funds and was involved in money-laundering offences. We are not treating it that way, but you could see it like that."
Correct in that the the front organization was the RBN, and that the funds were criminal. Also correct that RIPE the RIR did not know either of these facts and had clean hands. And correct that in a different situation than this, the organization receiving the funds would be liable to prosecution. I still can't help wondering what effect believing a bit less in the "we are not the (routing|internet|document) police" mantra would have had on policy enforcement. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Suresh, On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 19:20 +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
All the same, I would strongly repeat my request that the RIPE NCC as well as this WG work closely with anti abuse organizations including spamhaus (and of course MAAWG) to mitigate these problems. There's a maawg later this year (october 24-27) in Paris where I am sure a discussion of how to work together with the abuse teams at SPs to help mitigate the problem of scarce v4 resources being allocated to malicious actors (and perhaps a focus on what V6 netblocks are being acquired by them, and what to do about those).
My own take on the interaction between the anti-abuse communities and the rest of the networking community in general goes something like this: It is in the best interests of ISPs and other network operators to keep network abuse to a minimum. However, they also have other priorities other than simply handling abuse - hopefully these priorities align very closely with their users. The anti-spam community is by necessity narrowly focused on a small subset of issues. For them, all of the other things that ISPs bring up when talking about dealing with abuse seem like hand-waving, avoiding responsibility, and otherwise trying to avoid doing the Right Thing. I encourage ANYONE with interest in the Internet to participate in the RIPE community and also to attend RIPE meetings, I do not think that this will actually resolve the problems of tensions between communities. The people involved want different things. (Plus it's hard to normalize relations when Spamhaus representatives basically accuse the entire RIPE community of being irresponsible.) One possible source of additional upset is that people confuse the RIPE NCC and RIPE. They go to the RIPE NCC, and the RIPE NCC says "we do not make policy", and they think that they are just saying "nothing to be done, sorry!" There *is* something to be done - engage the RIPE community. This is where policies are made. Ultimately this means putting specific policy proposals forward to the working groups, but it is probably best to start by chatting with people about ideas on list or off. Stating a problem often gets better results than proposing a solution. -- Shane
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Shane Kerr <shane@time-travellers.org> wrote:
The anti-spam community is by necessity narrowly focused on a small subset of issues. For them, all of the other things that ISPs bring up when talking about dealing with abuse seem like hand-waving, avoiding responsibility, and otherwise trying to avoid doing the Right Thing.
Shane, the antispam community at MAAWG is the abuse and security teams at ISPs and big operators of email (webmail services). The same organizations that send their network and DNS people to ARIN, RIPE and APRICOT. The focus on operational issues is just the same. I would ask that you not point to, say, news.admin.net-abuse.email and let your comments be colored by that. The antispam community has evolved rather a lot from a decade back.
The people involved want different things. (Plus it's hard to normalize relations when Spamhaus representatives basically accuse the entire RIPE community of being irresponsible.)
They are highlighting a long standing issue with multiple PI / PA netblocks being used for abuse (malware propagation etc, not just spam), assigned to organizations that they see as fronts for online crime rather than legitimate entities. They appear to feel - and probably with some reason - that neither RIPE NCC nor the RIPE community has been sufficiently responsive to these concerns.
One possible source of additional upset is that people confuse the RIPE NCC and RIPE. They go to the RIPE NCC, and the RIPE NCC says "we do not make policy", and they think that they are just saying "nothing to be done, sorry!"
That won't fly unfortunately. The difference between the regional RIR and the internet community in the region is obvious - and here, what blame needs to be shared around is entirely collective. RIPE NCC should have, long ago, worked to crack down on gross abuse and gaming of the IP allocation process. To be fair, they are taking several steps in this direction. The RIPE community should, as a whole, be more operationally focused on this loss of a scarce shared resource by allocating large parts of it to entities that use these for a very short time before blocklisting, ISP nullroutes etc kick in, and then abandon them to be recovered by the RIR and potentially reallocated. Yes, the IP space involved may be collectively less than a /8, small potatoes at an RIR level, but still non trivial amounts of IP space.
There *is* something to be done - engage the RIPE community. This is where policies are made. Ultimately this means putting specific policy proposals forward to the working groups, but it is probably best to start by chatting with people about ideas on list or off. Stating a
By the same token, I'd encourage the community here to actively reach out. A substantial amount of antispam and security operational work goes on in other forums (some open like maawg, some closed and vetted etc). However this operational work tends to run into a brick wall where issues such as serial IP allocations to malicious entities goes on relatively unchecked, and outreach efforts / policy proposals submitted so far haven't received an adequate level of understanding and response. Specific policy proposals have been made in the past by others focused on this issue. Tobias Knecht, Uwe Rasmussen of Microsoft are two that I can think of. --srs -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Greetings all, I am a relative newcomer within RIPE community - but been working for some 10 years with CERT-FI, the national CERT team in Finland. During this period I have got a feeling (no statistics - yet) that the majority of cases where the validity of ipv4 / AS resource registration details can be questioned are within RIPE service area. APNIC, AFRINIC, LACNIC, ARIN -provided resources with this suspicion are quite rare on my radar. I have a couple of questions on my mind: 1) What is the current procedure to initiate an investigation with RIPE NCC on resource registration data consistency? 2) Are there any spesific requirements to be filled to trigger investiation procedures - what proof of suspicious registration data is needed? 3) Where I can find the current RIPE policies applied on this type of investigation request? 4) What kind of reply time one could expect from RIPE NCC for this type of request? 5) What methods I could use to extract -sponsoring LIR data of a inetnum / autnum object -all inetnum/autnum objects delegated by a spesified LIR from RIPE NCC WHOIS database? (personally I think there is no need to hide this information - all customer networks of an ISP can be easily extracted from BGP routing data, business protection needs IMHO do not warrant blocking this information) I have a couple of examples that could perhaps warrant a concentrated look. First is a recent and public one, documented here: http://www.abuse.ch/?p=3130 Could regisgtry consistency procedures be initiated on the suspicious resources mentioned in the blog post? A second case I would like to work with appropriate RIPE NCC staff directly. --Kauto -- Kauto Huopio - kauto.huopio@ficora.fi Senior information security adviser Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority / CERT-FI tel. +358-9-6966772, fax +358-9-6966515, mobile +358-50-5826131 CERT-FI watch desk daytime: +358-9-6966510 / http://www.cert.fi
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:21:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The RIPE community should, as a whole, be more operationally focused on this loss of a scarce shared resource by allocating large parts of it to entities that use these for a very short time before
Since IPv4 is going to run out anyway, what difference does "extend lots of effort to gain a few month" make here? I can see and share the desire to stop criminals using network resources, but the argument about "the big problem is waste of scarce resources" just doesn't fly with me - as it will not make a big difference one way or the other. Gert Doering - speaking as someone who is happy when people finally stop clinging to IPv4 and accept that it's done with -- 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
1. As a post mortem 2. To possibly stop those same entities from acquiring v6 blocks? On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Since IPv4 is going to run out anyway, what difference does "extend lots of effort to gain a few month" make here?
I can see and share the desire to stop criminals using network resources, but the argument about "the big problem is waste of scarce resources" just doesn't fly with me - as it will not make a big difference one way or the other.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:59:29PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
1. As a post mortem
So how much effort do we want to make (read: should the LIRs pay) on a dead horse?
2. To possibly stop those same entities from acquiring v6 blocks?
If these entities are legitimate businesses according to their national law, if the RIPE NCC will *not* give them addresses, we're going to have large problems (anti-monopoly laws, etc.). The situation is quite clear if a LEA shows up and states "these are criminals", and the RIPE policy takes that into account (withdraw addresses). Now, how do you know upfront that a new business is criminal, as defined by applicable law? "Is run by a well-known spammer" might be clear to you and me, but is it clear enough from a *legal* perspective? 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
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/ncc-services/r59-minutes.html has an interesting quote - probably the one useful nugget in that discussion. --- and i quote --- John Curran (ARIN) explained how this is done in the ARIN region. He said that ARIN does verification, but when a fraud is uncovered, ARIN does act to revoke resources. This is not related directly to the criminal activities, but due to a violation of the policy. Uwe agreed that it is not the RIPE NCC's job to determine what is legal or not, but pointed out that allowing somebody that obtained resources to use these resources for illegal purposes leaves him outside the law. He said that he will present propositions to the mailing list to reformulate the text in RIPE Document ripe-452 to revoke resources if an organisation if found not to actually exist. -------- So - if you wouldn't want to ask a microsoft lawyer, please feel free to ask ARIN what they do to verify paperwork, and to reclaim fraudulently registered address space. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 05:59:29PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
1. As a post mortem
So how much effort do we want to make (read: should the LIRs pay) on a dead horse?
2. To possibly stop those same entities from acquiring v6 blocks?
If these entities are legitimate businesses according to their national law, if the RIPE NCC will *not* give them addresses, we're going to have large problems (anti-monopoly laws, etc.).
The situation is quite clear if a LEA shows up and states "these are criminals", and the RIPE policy takes that into account (withdraw addresses).
Now, how do you know upfront that a new business is criminal, as defined by applicable law? "Is run by a well-known spammer" might be clear to you and me, but is it clear enough from a *legal* perspective?
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
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 06:44:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
So - if you wouldn't want to ask a microsoft lawyer, please feel free to ask ARIN what they do to verify paperwork, and to reclaim fraudulently registered address space.
That's what the RIPE NCC already *does*. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
"Suresh Ramasubramanian" wrote the following on 02/02/2011 13:14:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/ncc-services/r59-minutes.html has an interesting quote - probably the one useful nugget in that discussion.
--- and i quote ---
John Curran (ARIN) explained how this is done in the ARIN region. He said that ARIN does verification, but when a fraud is uncovered, ARIN does act to revoke resources. This is not related directly to the criminal activities, but due to a violation of the policy.
Uwe agreed that it is not the RIPE NCC's job to determine what is legal or not, but pointed out that allowing somebody that obtained resources to use these resources for illegal purposes leaves him outside the law. He said that he will present propositions to the mailing list to reformulate the text in RIPE Document ripe-452 to revoke resources if an organisation if found not to actually exist.
--------
So - if you wouldn't want to ask a microsoft lawyer, please feel free to ask ARIN what they do to verify paperwork, and to reclaim fraudulently registered address space.
The various RIRs all cooperate and discuss these matters. The ARIN region is very different to that of RIPE NCC, but in short, yes, these discussions have taken place and will continue to do so. Brian.
On 02/Feb/11 13:23, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:21:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The RIPE community should, as a whole, be more operationally focused on this loss of a scarce shared resource by allocating large parts of it to entities that use these for a very short time before
Since IPv4 is going to run out anyway, what difference does "extend lots of effort to gain a few month" make here?
IPv4 will run out when we'll either be able to vet peers without using IP addresses, or have found how to effectively run IPv6 DNSBLs.
I can see and share the desire to stop criminals using network resources, but the argument about "the big problem is waste of scarce resources" just doesn't fly with me - as it will not make a big difference one way or the other.
Scarceness makes a resource more precious. For example, comparing a /15 allocation to 250K$ implies a US monetary supply of 8G$. Using figures in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States (8000G$) I'd guess Suresh meant a quarter of a *billion* dollars.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
Scarceness makes a resource more precious. For example, comparing a /15 allocation to 250K$ implies a US monetary supply of 8G$. Using figures in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States (8000G$) I'd guess Suresh meant a quarter of a *billion* dollars.
Thank you, I was never too good at math. But the document police had better be very much active for a loan that size :) -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 02:01:29PM +0100, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
IPv4 will run out when we'll either be able to vet peers without using IP addresses, or have found how to effectively run IPv6 DNSBLs.
Let me give you a hint: IPv4 will run out this year. So what ever you do, you better get prepared for that. [..]
Scarceness makes a resource more precious.
... until the price goes up far enough that alternatives become viable. IPv4 is dead, and the economics will make sure people will understand that before long :-) 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
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Let me give you a hint: IPv4 will run out this year. So what ever you do, you better get prepared for that.
Right. And future generations wont thank us if the same lackadaisical policy enforcement means large swathes of v6 space get glommed on, and we repeat this conversation a couple of decades later. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 06:54:40PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Let me give you a hint: IPv4 will run out this year. So what ever you do, you better get prepared for that.
Right. And future generations wont thank us if the same lackadaisical policy enforcement means large swathes of v6 space get glommed on, and we repeat this conversation a couple of decades later.
Please apply basic math 101 here. There's 4 billion times the amount of *networks* in IPv6 than the amount of single IP addresses in IPv4. Normal LIRs in IPv6 get a /32 - so to "glomm" (whatever that means) "large swathes", to have a significant impact on the 4 billion /32s out there (maybe only 500 million if you only count FP001), they will have to come back *fairly* often for new /32s. Size does matter. 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
2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh? On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 06:54:40PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
Let me give you a hint: IPv4 will run out this year. So what ever you do, you better get prepared for that.
Right. And future generations wont thank us if the same lackadaisical policy enforcement means large swathes of v6 space get glommed on, and we repeat this conversation a couple of decades later.
Please apply basic math 101 here. There's 4 billion times the amount of *networks* in IPv6 than the amount of single IP addresses in IPv4.
Normal LIRs in IPv6 get a /32 - so to "glomm" (whatever that means) "large swathes", to have a significant impact on the 4 billion /32s out there (maybe only 500 million if you only count FP001), they will have to come back *fairly* often for new /32s.
Size does matter.
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
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh?
Let's be realistic and look at the number of ISPs/customers/users instead of the full 128 bits: 536.870.912 ISPs with each enough space for 16.777.216 customers with 256 networks each, or 65.536 customers with 65.536 networks each... ... Yes ... That should be enough for everybody :) Sander PS: I think the problem here will be to fit those 536.870.912 ISPs in the routing table...
See there's a lot of stuff out there - currently only in vendor documents / IPv6 forum publicity material .. Toasters, phones, cars etc with v6 stacks. Which might exist. Let's not even count what happens if someone decides to fit v6 somewhere into vint cerf's "internet over outer space" idea [what next, an intergalactic governance federation where tentacled aliens attend RIPE meetings?] The old allocations of class A, class B and class C were realistic too. Fuel growth by handing out IPs for the asking, there's plenty to go around. --srs On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl> wrote:
Let's be realistic and look at the number of ISPs/customers/users instead of the full 128 bits: 536.870.912 ISPs with each enough space for 16.777.216 customers with 256 networks each, or 65.536 customers with 65.536 networks each...
... Yes ... That should be enough for everybody :)
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 09:19:17PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
See there's a lot of stuff out there - currently only in vendor documents / IPv6 forum publicity material .. Toasters, phones, cars etc with v6 stacks. Which might exist.
The number of devices inside a /64 is fully irrelevant to the discussion, because there is no way to exhaust a /64 with physical devices. The only interesting question here is - are there enough "ISP sized chunks" to number each company that could reasonably show up at a RIR and declare to be an ISP - are there enough "end site sized chunks" to number each possible end site (home user or corporate customer) and if you do the math, and look up a few things in Wikipedia, like "population on earth", you'll see that indeed, 64 bits of prefix space is a lot. It's not enough to give ISPs a "class A" (/8), "class B" (/16) - but giving ISPs a "class C" (/24) each should even work out. But we're not doing that, we give whole ISPs the equivalent of a single IPv4 address (/32). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- 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
Hi, On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:53:41PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh?
As I said, please apply math 101. Over the last 15 years, I've heard the phrase "and 640k is enough for everybody" a *lot* of times, but usually not by people that have actually *done* the math. 64 bits for numbering networks is a *lot*. 32 bits (or even just 29) for numbering ISPs is a *lot*. Of course it's not infinite, and it won't last for numbering lots of other galaxies, but this is not the problem we're going to be faced for the next few generations - if compared to the number of people the earth can sustain, and to the number of enterprises of a certain category that are likely to exist in the next 50 years, the IPv6 space is "big enough". If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer in 20 years. 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
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 10:08 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
If I'm wrong, I'll buy you a beer in 20 years.
I'll take you up on that then. It'll still make lots more sense to avoid v6 being polluted right from the start. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On Wednesday 02 February 2011 16.23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
2^128 IP addresses should be enough for anybody, eh? If it was so. But in real life it more like 2^48 due to waste at both ends
( 64 bits off at lower end , used as "host identifier", 16 bits used to separate which registrar, typoe of address etc ) -- Peter Håkanson There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it again ... and again ... and again ... and again. ( Det är billigare att göra rätt. Det är dyrt att laga fel. )
In message <20110202150803.GS47277@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
... so to "glomm" (whatever that means)...
American vernacular. glom (v.) -- To attach to one's self in a more or less greedy, selfish, or unseamly manner. Examples: We watched him glom onto the last piece of pizza. The robber backed up his pick-up truck so that he could more easily glom onto the uprooted ATM machine.
In message <20110202131219.GQ47277@Space.Net>, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
IPv4 is dead, and the economics will make sure people will understand that before long :-)
I feel quite sure that many said that same thing about the internal combustion engine after the first Arab Oil Embargo in 1973. Never underestimate the power of inertia and/or the costs associated with a mass changeover to a new technology.
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 07:21:36AM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
The RIPE community should, as a whole, be more operationally focused on this loss of a scarce shared resource by allocating large parts of it to entities that use these for a very short time before
Since IPv4 is going to run out anyway, what difference does "extend lots of effort to gain a few month" make here?
I can see and share the desire to stop criminals using network resources, but the argument about "the big problem is waste of scarce resources" just doesn't fly with me - as it will not make a big difference one way or the other.
IPv4 is to be used for quite some time. The miscreant community will turn their focus to allocated but unused address space and AS resources. We just handled an incident where an AS belonging to a finnish telco was advertised via an AS in Russia. The /24 had a valid route object for this AS - this had been left to the DB by accident. We should look on more strict policies on appropriate registration of address space delegations in use and deregistration when the resources are taken out of service. Needless to say, the finnish provider in question was slightly surprised to see a resource delegated to them appear behind a RU provider. RIPE NCC could have a role in looking after disrepancies between routing database and live global BGP routing table.. --Kauto -- Kauto Huopio - kauto.huopio@ficora.fi Senior information security adviser Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority / CERT-FI tel. +358-9-6966772, fax +358-9-6966515, mobile +358-50-5826131 CERT-FI watch desk daytime: +358-9-6966510 / http://www.cert.fi
Kauto Huopio wrote:
IPv4 is to be used for quite some time. The miscreant community will turn their focus to allocated but unused address space and AS resources. We just handled an incident where an AS belonging to a finnish telco was advertised via an AS in Russia. The /24 had a valid route object for this AS - this had been left to the DB by accident.
Just to reclarify: the AS in question was made redundand by a merger of ISP:s. The /24 in question was unused for quite some time - apparently because of a customer changing providers. --kauto -- Kauto Huopio - kauto.huopio@ficora.fi Senior information security adviser Finnish Communications Regulatory Authority / CERT-FI tel. +358-9-6966772, fax +358-9-6966515, mobile +358-50-5826131 CERT-FI watch desk daytime: +358-9-6966510 / http://www.cert.fi
On 2/1/11 12:45 PM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
I will finish by restating that my reasons for this, and the reasons of those who discussed it with me, were not based on shooting the messenger, however it may look. I cannot, of course, empirically prove that, but I'm hoping that you may accept my word and that the actions of the WG both now and in the future will back that up.
Hi Brian, a lot of people actually *do* things in the anti-abuse community, and Richard has been part of some of the most active and effective ones for years now. As well as Suresh, FWIW. In the meanwhile, almost all is being carried forth inside this same WG requires several months and rarely ends up in something useful to the community. Or -at least- this is my (strictly operational) perception: I might be proved wrong. All the criticism Richard raised about RIPE (both NCC *and* community, IMHO) behavior in rogue network assignments in http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=663 could turn into an interesting discussion about what RIPE community could actually *do* in order to inhibit similar things to happen again. Instead, everything turned out in what we observe here. Unfortunate coincidence? Maybe. Or maybe not. Just let's look back at what happened here after something completely different like http://labs.ripe.net/Members/jsq/economic-incentives-for-internet-security was posted here. The discussion suddenly turned into how "Spam in general cannot be defined". A discussion the email industry had almost 10 years ago and moved forth. And about how "It doesn't make any sense in almost all cases". Proposals about how to add correctives to the paper? Zero. About how to use the idea in order to obtain better policies? Zero. I wonder if this is really the "Anti-Abuse Working Group" or turned into the "Anti-Anti-Abuse Working Group" instead. IMHO, the question is not whether "Richard’s comments unfairly damaged the reputation [...] the Anti-Abuse Working Group" -to quote an extract from your minutes from Rome meeting- but if this working group still has a reason to exist in its current shape and still has any reputation at all. I observe that a lot of work is being done on several aspects of spam and network abuse mitigation, in a lot of places. Only, it rarely happens here. We should all ask ourselves why, and -most important- how to change this. And possibly find the answers... -- # Emanuele Balla # # # System & Network Engineer # Cell: +39 348 7747907 # # Spin s.r.l. - AS6734 # Phone: +39 040 9869090 # # Trieste # Email: balla@staff.spin.it #
Emmanuelle, thank you for posting this. If this discussion you refer to did take place, I do agree that it is something the antispam community at large has moved on from over a decade back, and shifted its focus to operational mitigation - something that really should be relevant to this WG. I would urgently request that abuse-wg members please try to also involve their colleagues who work on abuse rather than routing / dns teams. The upcoming Paris maawg should provide ample opportunity for european SPs (several of whom are also maawg members) to attend and participate in these discussions from another perspective. thanks --srs On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Emanuele Balla <balla@spin.it> wrote:
The discussion suddenly turned into how "Spam in general cannot be defined". A discussion the email industry had almost 10 years ago and moved forth. And about how "It doesn't make any sense in almost all cases".
Proposals about how to add correctives to the paper? Zero. About how to use the idea in order to obtain better policies? Zero.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011 04:33:29 pm Emanuele Balla wrote:
I wonder if this is really the "Anti-Abuse Working Group" or turned into the "Anti-Anti-Abuse Working Group" instead.
IMHO, the question is not whether "Richard’s comments unfairly damaged the reputation [...] the Anti-Abuse Working Group" -to quote an extract from your minutes from Rome meeting- but if this working group still has a reason to exist in its current shape and still has any reputation at all.
I observe that a lot of work is being done on several aspects of spam and network abuse mitigation, in a lot of places.
Only, it rarely happens here.
We should all ask ourselves why, and -most important- how to change this. And possibly find the answers...
I really wish to thank the author of these comments. To be honest, I wanted to raise these concerns at the RIPE 61 Meeting, as I was a participant, but the issues with Richard made the timing inappropriate. I am a relative newcomer both to the RIPE community and the AAWG (RIPE 59 was my first meeting). I got interested in this WG as an operator of Internet Services, mainly mail services. During this time I found very little useful stuff in this group from a technical operator's point of view. I must say Tobias' proposals were the most useful actual work that I saw here and remains to be seen what will eventually happen with them. Having said this, I think there is a lot of room for improvement and it is never late to produce useful work, collaborating also with other relevant Groups. But, in my opinion this Group has to either reform and reorganize itself or stop to exist with its current form. Regards, Kostas Zorbadelos
* Brian Nisbet:
Remote participation was possible, with a live video feed. This comment, some two months after RIPE 61, is the first comment that has been made about this. And while I am not in any way ignoring it I don't think it's unfair to say that it suggests the WG were either in support or ambivalent towards what happened?
It was quite different to figure out, based on the transcript, what was going on. It would have been nice to announce the intention of removing the WG chair beforehand, on the mailing list. I think the whole thing is quite odd and unnecessary, but it's happened. The main lesson to me seems that RIPE needs a clear procedure for removing WG chairs before their term ends. Beyond that, it's probably time to move on. That being said, so far, I've refrained from commenting on the WG session because I wanted to give the task force a chance to produce results. What's the status with that? Will the task force conduct its business mostly on a public mailing list, or behind closed doors? -- Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de> BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99
Hi, On 2 Feb 2011, at 2:57, Florian Weimer wrote: [...]
It was quite different to figure out, based on the transcript, what was going on. It would have been nice to announce the intention of removing the WG chair beforehand, on the mailing list.
I am a bit surprised by this whole discussion because other than the politeness issue I am really not sure why who the chair of a WG is makes all the much difference. From my perspective, the chair has made a commitment to dedicate extra time and attention that other participants have not. But who the chair is should never have a significant impact on the WG's output and the output should be the consensus of the participants and not the decisions of some benevolent dictator. If some people want particular individuals or companies to be blacklisted by the RIPE NCC then they need to make a formal proposal along those lines. I have not seen a proposal for a RIPE NCC operated blacklist of known blaggards who must not be allowed access to IP addresses but would be interested in reviewing a proposal if it is forthcoming. Regards, Leo Vegoda
On 02/Feb/11 18:31, Leo Vegoda wrote:
If some people want particular individuals or companies to be blacklisted by the RIPE NCC then they need to make a formal proposal along those lines. I have not seen a proposal for a RIPE NCC operated blacklist of known blaggards who must not be allowed access to IP addresses but would be interested in reviewing a proposal if it is forthcoming.
Yes, I would want that individuals or companies who cannot comply with a minimal policy be blacklisted. The minimal policy would be to provide the email address of an abuse team who at least tries to investigate on abuse issues related to their IPs. This may sound similar to proposals withdrawn at RIPE 61... What does it mean "A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion"? Is it something that is going to land on this mailing list, sometimes?
On 02/02/2011 08:07 PM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
What does it mean "A task force will be organised to solve the implementation issues pointed out by the proposal discussion"? Is it something that is going to land on this mailing list, sometimes?
I don't mind a few talks in a more closed circle to avoid a possible noise in discussions, but I certainly expect the outcome in this public list to be discussed openly. Otherwise, what is the meaning of an "open" Working Group? Regards, Kostas
That's not what we are driving at, at all. I would be interested in seeing the status of the Rasmussen and Knecht proposals once they go forward. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org> wrote:
If some people want particular individuals or companies to be blacklisted by the RIPE NCC then they need to make a formal proposal along those lines. I have not seen a proposal for a RIPE NCC operated blacklist of known blaggards who must not be allowed access to IP addresses but would be interested in reviewing a proposal if it is forthcoming.
-- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On Feb 2, 2011, at 2:57 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
It was quite different to figure out, based on the transcript, what was going on.
Agreed.
That being said, so far, I've refrained from commenting on the WG session because I wanted to give the task force a chance to produce results. What's the status with that?
I've been looking forward to these results as well.
participants (15)
-
Alessandro Vesely -
Brian Nisbet -
Emanuele Balla -
Florian Weimer -
Gert Doering -
J.D. Falk -
Kauto Huopio -
Kostas Zorbadelos -
Leo Vegoda -
peter h -
Ronald F. Guilmette -
Sander Steffann -
Shane Kerr -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Suresh Ramasubramanian