RE: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... (Resource listings yes, resourcerouting no)
It's an individual decision of each organization choosing to accept and further pass along the route. Like it or not, there is not THE INTERNET there is a set of independent networks operating under a commonly agreed framework of protocols. Each network operator is free to accept, deny, or otherwise handle any traffic they wish on any basis they choose. This is the greatest strength of the internet. It is also it's most exploitable weakness in some ways. However, changing it would fundamentally destroy much of it's usefulness and resilience as a tool for the democratization of communication. As such, I must oppose any such move to apply greater central authority. Owen Of course, and I absolutely agree with that so long as the individual operators have the information they need to make those individual decisions. And that is the goal. Having information as to which resource have no valid points of contact and what other resources are associated with that invalid POC might be useful to some when some traffic crosses their net or reaches their other resources that causes problems.
RE: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... (Resource listings yes, resourcerouting no)
We will shortly be providing a list of number resources with no valid POC for those who desire it (per the current bulk Whois policy.) If you can put an annotation into a whois records for a POC, saying explicity that you can't get ahold of this person, then it would seem to me to be a rather trivial matter of programming to transplant a very similar sort of annotation into each and every IP block or AS record that has that same specific POC record as one of its associated POC records, either Admin, or Technical, or whatever. Also a nice idea, and one that I've taken as a formal suggestion for improvement. Those two things would be enough for me for the numbers covered by agreement, the legacy issue is a tougher nut. There should be some sort of requirement that any network being announced have a valid point of contact. Whose jurisdiction that would fall under for a global Internet beats me.
Re: ARIN Fraud Reporting Form ... (Resource listings yes, resourcerouting no)
On Oct 1, 2010, at 8:20 PM, George Bonser wrote: We will shortly be providing a list of number resources with no valid POC for those who desire it (per the current bulk Whois policy.) If you can put an annotation into a whois records for a POC, saying explicity that you can't get ahold of this person, then it would seem to me to be a rather trivial matter of programming to transplant a very similar sort of annotation into each and every IP block or AS record that has that same specific POC record as one of its associated POC records, either Admin, or Technical, or whatever. Also a nice idea, and one that I've taken as a formal suggestion for improvement. Those two things would be enough for me for the numbers covered by agreement, the legacy issue is a tougher nut. There should be some sort of requirement that any network being announced have a valid point of contact. Whose jurisdiction that would fall under for a global Internet beats me. It's an individual decision of each organization choosing to accept and further pass along the route. Like it or not, there is not THE INTERNET there is a set of independent networks operating under a commonly agreed framework of protocols. Each network operator is free to accept, deny, or otherwise handle any traffic they wish on any basis they choose. This is the greatest strength of the internet. It is also it's most exploitable weakness in some ways. However, changing it would fundamentally destroy much of it's usefulness and resilience as a tool for the democratization of communication. As such, I must oppose any such move to apply greater central authority. Owen
