In message <[email protected]>, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Everybody is _supposed_ to have working e-mail address contacts in their >> IP allocation records within the WHOIS data bases of the various RiRs, >> yes? So suppose that there had been a protocol in place that required >> an affirmative e-mail response from at least one legitimate IP address >> block registrant (in some/any region) before the allocation of an AS >> number would proceed. Such a protocol would have forestalled the >> situation that we now see with AS201640, would it not? > >It is a possible implementation but one that only has a one-time check. >It wouldn't keep track of changes to resources in other regions. The >working group asked the RIPE NCC to look into the possibilities and >report back to the working group. Let's see if there is a easy to use >solution that makes sure we don't import data into our database that >then end up being invalid or outdated. I agree that this is an emminently reasonable way to proceed. And yes, as we now know, a simple one-time up-front check of the kind I described would _not_ have prevented the sitiation with AS201640 from arising, because that AS _did_ start out life with its own legitimate /24 allocation... which was subsequently withdrawn. So in this case, the kind of consistancy check I proposed would have been no help at all in preventing what ultimately ensued. (And in fact, that initial & temporary /24 allocation for AS201640 would seem to have been deliberately *engineered* to defeat exactly such a check, even if such a thing had been in place at the time AS201640 was created.) Regards, rfg
