Hell all,
I'm thorned on this one.
While I fully understand RIPE NCC' willingness reduce the administrative
burden on something that's supposed to be deprecated, we all know that
the scarcity will introduce new challenges against fraudulent use of
address space. If not with a fully documented assignments' database, we
would loose a tool to mitigate abuse.
On the other hand, let's be realistic, only a very few of us document
assignments in full, and in a way that's not actually bloating the database.
As far as I'm concerned, I see two scenarios :
- An ISP who wants to distinguish its infrastructure from its customers
- A more general provider delegating prefixes routed from other ASNs.
The second case is clearly closed : to get a route object, the INETNUM
has to be specified.
On the former though, I know of some large ISPs moving customers behing
CGNs using former infrastructure space and didn't declare it within the
database. It's a nightmare when trying to enforce aggressive anti-spam
policies.
Does it matter ? I think not.
I'd like to postpone this proposal until we get reports on clear cases
and arguments to alleviate the administrative burden and cleanse the
database, if any stands. The current policy being not uphold to the best
standards doesn't seem to me as a meaningful reason to lighten what
_should_ be our responsibility.
Best regards,
--
Jérôme Nicolle
+33 6 19 31 27 14
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
