Re: [ncc-services-wg] 2012-08 Review Period extended until 1 October 2013 (Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources)
Dear All, As per the below mail, the NCC Services working group chairs decided to extend the review period for 2012-08 until the 1st of October. It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed. Please take a few minutes (it's not a lot to read) and let us know your thoughts so that we can move to the next steps once the review period has ended. Many thanks, Bijal and Kurtis NCC Service WG Chairs On 2 Sep 2013, at 14:39, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The Review Period for the proposal 2012-08, "Publication of Sponsoring LIR for Independent Number Resources", has been extended until 1 October 2013.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC
On 9 Sep 2013, at 18:53, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed.
Although I've been silent throughout the current Review Period, I'm still in favour of this proposal. /Niall
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 09:19:06AM +0100, Niall O'Reilly wrote:
Although I've been silent throughout the current Review Period, I'm still in favour of this proposal.
and I'm still opposed, for what that is worth. rgds, Sascha Luck
2013-09-10 10:19, Niall O'Reilly skrev:
On 9 Sep 2013, at 18:53, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed. Although I've been silent throughout the current Review Period, I'm still in favour of this proposal.
I'm in favour of the this proposal. -- Bengt Gördén Resilans AB
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Bengt Gördén wrote:
2013-09-10 10:19, Niall O'Reilly skrev:
On 9 Sep 2013, at 18:53, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed. Although I've been silent throughout the current Review Period, I'm still in favour of this proposal.
I'm in favour of the this proposal.
+1 Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
Hi, On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:48:08PM -1000, Randy Bush wrote:
I'm in favour of the this proposal. ^ still
+1 And I do see a certain responsibility on the side of a sponsoring LIR to enable communication to the holder of the address space - after all, this *is* the role of the "sponsoring LIR": facilitate a contractual path between the NCC and the address space holder. If you think that your "sponsoring LIR clients" will cause lots of abuse mails to be sent to you, maybe you should not make them customers in the first place - or add a clause to your contracts that abuse handling will be billed to the customer (if they are responsible)? (OTOH, I'm not feeling really strong about this, so I won't enter a mudfight for it) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled 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
And I do see a certain responsibility on the side of a sponsoring LIR to enable communication to the holder of the address space - after all, this *is* the role of the "sponsoring LIR": facilitate a contractual path between the NCC and the address space holder.
This. I support this proposal. Regards, Rob
Hi,
And I do see a certain responsibility on the side of a sponsoring LIR to enable communication to the holder of the address space - after all, this *is* the role of the "sponsoring LIR": facilitate a contractual path between the NCC and the address space holder.
If you think that your "sponsoring LIR clients" will cause lots of abuse mails to be sent to you, maybe you should not make them customers in the first place - or add a clause to your contracts that abuse handling will be billed to the customer (if they are responsible)?
(OTOH, I'm not feeling really strong about this, so I won't enter a mudfight for it)
+1 to all of the above, Sander
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 02:26:29PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
If you think that your "sponsoring LIR clients" will cause lots of abuse mails to be sent to you, maybe you should not make them customers in the first place - or add a clause to your contracts that abuse handling will be billed to the customer (if they are responsible)?
And I suspect that this is the ulterior motivation for this proposal. Self censorship on the part of the LIR.
(OTOH, I'm not feeling really strong about this, so I won't enter a mudfight for it)
And I don't really care anymore what the RIPE community does or not. We'll route around you, too. rgds, Sascha Luck
I'm in favour of this proposal. // Andreas Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se Den 2013-09-10 15:34 skrev Daniel Stolpe <stolpe@resilans.se>:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013, Bengt Gördén wrote:
2013-09-10 10:19, Niall O'Reilly skrev:
On 9 Sep 2013, at 18:53, Bijal Sanghani wrote:
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed. Although I've been silent throughout the current Review Period, I'm still in favour of this proposal.
I'm in favour of the this proposal.
+1
Daniel Stolpe
__________________________________________________________________________ _______ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe@resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
You can find the full proposal at:
As stated before I still oppose to this policy. Registration of PI space by a sponsoring LIR is an administrative task and doesn't have anything to do with abuse management. I foresee that publication of the sponsoring LIR will be abused for abuse messaging and relaying, while there is no network / operational relation between the end-user and the LIR. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi, On 9/10/13 1:41 PM, Erik Bais wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
As stated before I still oppose to this policy.
Registration of PI space by a sponsoring LIR is an administrative task and doesn't have anything to do with abuse management. I foresee that publication of the sponsoring LIR will be abused for abuse messaging and relaying, while there is no network / operational relation between the end-user and the LIR.
+1 -- Kind regards, Elvis Velea
+1 Met vriendelijke groet, Maurice Valentijn Trafego IS B.V. Hosting is een vak, wij zorgen ervoor dat u online blijft Ekelstraat 3 4726AN Heerle Helpdesk NL: 0165-700580 Helpdesk Be: 03-8080575 www.trafego.net www.facebook.com/trafego Op 10 sep 2013, om 13:42 heeft Elvis Velea het volgende geschreven:
Hi,
On 9/10/13 1:41 PM, Erik Bais wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
As stated before I still oppose to this policy.
Registration of PI space by a sponsoring LIR is an administrative task and doesn't have anything to do with abuse management. I foresee that publication of the sponsoring LIR will be abused for abuse messaging and relaying, while there is no network / operational relation between the end-user and the LIR.
+1
-- Kind regards, Elvis Velea
Hi, On 9/10/13 1:41 PM, Erik Bais wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
As stated before I still oppose to this policy.
Registration of PI space by a sponsoring LIR is an administrative task and doesn't have anything to do with abuse management. I foresee that publication of the sponsoring LIR will be abused for abuse messaging and relaying, while there is no network / operational relation between the end-user and the LIR.
+1 -- Kind regards, Jerzy Pawlus
Eric, On 10/09/2013 11:41, Erik Bais wrote:
Registration of PI space by a sponsoring LIR is an administrative task and doesn't have anything to do with abuse management.
This proposal is not about abuse management. It's about ensuring that the same standards of openness which apply to everything else in the RIPE database are also applied to PI resources. Registration openness and transparency are fundamental to the RIPE database, and the RIPE database is the core function of the RIPE NCC. These principals are why we have a RIPE database in the first place. If you disagree with this proposal, you should probably submit an alternative policy proposal to close off public access to the RIPE database and turn it into a private internal database, accessible only by the RIPE NCC. I don't know what this would achieve, but I don't think it would be a good thing. Nick
Nick, On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:29:12PM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
This proposal is not about abuse management.
Did you read your own proposal? "Rationale a. Arguments supporting the proposal [...] Publishing this information provides an additional means for tackling abuse issues on the Internet." This sentence proves that one of the intentions of this proposal is to make a LIR responsible for the actions of a controversial and/or inconvenient end-user. It will therefore result in self-censorship of LIRs who are probably busy enough without being harassed by every vigilante on the internet - for the actions of a third party for which the LIR does NOTHING ELSE but handle paperwork to the NCC. rgds, Sascha Luck
On 11/09/2013 20:07, Sascha Luck wrote:
Did you read your own proposal?
yep, it mentions abuse. It's at the bottom of the list because it was an afterthought in the list of reasons for justification and if it hadn't been mentioned, someone would have brought it up on ncc-services-wg anyway. Re: your other comment:
And I suspect that this is the ulterior motivation for this proposal. Self censorship on the part of the LIR.
Sorry to disappoint, but no ulterior motives. As author of the proposal, my concern is transparency and openness of registration information which has served us well over the last twentysomething years. If you feel strongly that registration information should be made private, then please submit a proposal to close off access to the rest of the RIPE database, because this is what you are arguing here. Nick
And I suspect that this is the ulterior motivation for this proposal. Self censorship on the part of the LIR.
Sorry to disappoint, but no ulterior motives. As author of the proposal, my concern is transparency and openness of registration information which has served us well over the last twentysomething years.
As a co-author, I'd like to chime in and mirror Nick's statement, for me it started as a frustration that the data couldn't be accessed easily (or without the assistance of the NCC). I think such openness and transparency is becoming increasingly more important in our industry. I see this as a step forwards, and not backwards. Dave.
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:15:05PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
I think such openness and transparency is becoming increasingly more important in our industry. I see this as a step forwards, and not backwards.
I fully agree, I support the proposal and would love to see it implemented. Kind regards, Job
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 +1, I agree. mh Le 12/09/2013 15:33, Job Snijders a écrit :
On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 12:15:05PM +0000, David Freedman wrote:
I think such openness and transparency is becoming increasingly more important in our industry. I see this as a step forwards, and not backwards.
I fully agree, I support the proposal and would love to see it implemented.
Kind regards,
Job
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlIxxHoACgkQZNZ/rrgsqaeofwCfQm0PNbplnIHV5Hvu/BaDrVJc icgAoJACm09hhmhL4ncCCRJ+dmKvubTk =Xqx9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bijal: BS> As per the below mail, the NCC Services working group chairs decided to extend the BS> review period for 2012-08 until the 1st of October. BS> It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing BS> list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed. I would like to avoid abuse reports which makes no sense for me. LIRs are not running networks with PI addressing, so the goal of proposal is incorrect. On the other hand, the community may ask the NCC to make the abuse-c field obligatory for PIs. Gert:
And I do see a certain responsibility on the side of a sponsoring LIR to enable communication to the holder of the address space - after all, this *is* the role of the "sponsoring LIR": facilitate a contractual path between the NCC and the address space holder.
At the moment, LIRs are responsible only for publishing contacts. You can propose to clarify the contractual requirements (RIPE-452). -- Sergey
Hi, On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:19:36PM +0200, Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
Gert:
And I do see a certain responsibility on the side of a sponsoring LIR to enable communication to the holder of the address space - after all, this *is* the role of the "sponsoring LIR": facilitate a contractual path between the NCC and the address space holder.
At the moment, LIRs are responsible only for publishing contacts. You can propose to clarify the contractual requirements (RIPE-452).
This statement actually strengthens the proposal :-) - so if there is a PI network that has non-working contacts, who do you contact? The responsible person for that contact data... and how do you know who that is? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled 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, Sep 11, 2013 at 09:24:00PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
This statement actually strengthens the proposal :-) - so if there is a PI network that has non-working contacts, who do you contact? The responsible person for that contact data... and how do you know who that is?
You contact the NCC. They know who the sponsor is and they have the contractual clout to enforce correct contacts. They can even reclaim the space in question. rgds, Sascha Luck
On Sep 11, 2013, at 9:24 PM, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
At the moment, LIRs are responsible only for publishing contacts. You can propose to clarify the contractual requirements (RIPE-452). This statement actually strengthens the proposal :-) - so if there is a PI network that has non-working contacts, who do you contact? The responsible person for that contact data... and how do you know who that is?
Usually I am using RIPE Abuse report form. I am very satisfied with it. -- Sergey
* Sergey Myasoedov wrote:
LIRs are not running networks with PI addressing
LIRs may very well be running networks with PI addressing (I do!), so as a blanket statement, the above is false. For what it's worth, the reverse is also true: An LIR does not necessarily have anything to do with running the networks that are using PA addresses assigned by the LIR in question. However in this case, the LIR contact information are still clearly visible in the RIPE database (in the inet[6]num with status ALLOCATED PA). I see this proposal as bringing "parity" between PI and PA. Thus, +1. Tore
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
LIRs are not running networks with PI addressing LIRs may very well be running networks with PI addressing (I do!), so as a blanket statement, the above is false.
Oh yes, but I believe we are talking about PIs with non-published LIR<->End User relationship. When PI owner become an LIR, the LIR normally become a sponsoring organization and it is easy to see and to get a contact details. In the case when LIR will not sponsor its own PI object, what is the point of publishing sponsor's regid? -- Sergey
* Sergey Myasoedov
On Sep 11, 2013, at 10:50 PM, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:
LIRs are not running networks with PI addressing LIRs may very well be running networks with PI addressing (I do!), so as a blanket statement, the above is false.
Oh yes, but I believe we are talking about PIs with non-published LIR<->End User relationship. When PI owner become an LIR, the LIR normally become a sponsoring organization and it is easy to see and to get a contact details.
In the case when LIR will not sponsor its own PI object, what is the point of publishing sponsor's regid?
I wasn't talking about my own PI blocks, I was talking about my customer's. Which are used on networks I run for them. In the end it's all integers anyway, and I'll happily operate those integers for my customers regardless of labels and how they were obtained, including (but not limited to): - PA addresses issued by my own LIR - PA addresses issued by another LIR - PI addresses sponsored by my own LIR - PI addresses sponsored by another LIR (Same shit, different wrapping. My routers cannot tell the difference.) In the case of PA blocks, the issuing LIR is always published in the database and on the FTP. The issuing LIR might very well have absolutely *nothing* to do with the End User's operational use of the addresses in question, yet we publish it. I don't see why PI addresses and their sponsoring LIRs should be treated any different than PA addresses and their issuing LIR in this regard. Tore
Dear all, I still maintain that the benefits outweigh the potential downsides so I am still in favour of this proposal. Richard
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani@euro-ix.net> wrote:
Dear All,
As per the below mail, the NCC Services working group chairs decided to extend the review period for 2012-08 until the 1st of October.
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed.
Please take a few minutes (it's not a lot to read) and let us know your thoughts so that we can move to the next steps once the review period has ended.
supported -- Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE rogerj@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key! http://www.jorgensen.no | roger@jorgensen.no
support -- Tassos Roger Jørgensen wrote on 21/9/2013 11:54:
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani@euro-ix.net> wrote:
Dear All,
As per the below mail, the NCC Services working group chairs decided to extend the review period for 2012-08 until the 1st of October.
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed.
Please take a few minutes (it's not a lot to read) and let us know your thoughts so that we can move to the next steps once the review period has ended. supported
Hello all, +1 George On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Bijal Sanghani <bijal.sanghani@euro-ix.net>wrote:
Dear All,
As per the below mail, the NCC Services working group chairs decided to extend the review period for 2012-08 until the 1st of October.
It would really help us and the authors if we had some more feedback on the mailing list, even a +1 to go ahead or -1 if you feel it's not needed.
Please take a few minutes (it's not a lot to read) and let us know your thoughts so that we can move to the next steps once the review period has ended.
Many thanks,
Bijal and Kurtis NCC Service WG Chairs
On 2 Sep 2013, at 14:39, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
The Review Period for the proposal 2012-08, "Publication of Sponsoring
for Independent Number Resources", has been extended until 1 October
LIR 2013.
You can find the full proposal at:
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-08
We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <ncc-services-wg@ripe.net>.
Regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Office RIPE NCC
participants (24)
-
Andreas Larsen -
Bengt Gördén -
Bijal Sanghani -
Daniel Stolpe -
David Freedman -
Elvis Velea -
Erik Bais -
George Giannousopoulos -
Gert Doering -
Jerzy Pawlus -
Job Snijders -
M Valentijn | Trafego IS B.V. -
Michael Hallgren -
Niall O'Reilly -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Richard Hartmann -
Rob Evans -
Roger Jørgensen -
Sander Steffann -
Sascha Luck -
Sergey Myasoedov -
Tassos Chatzithomaoglou -
Tore Anderson