And what if the LIR is complicit in this activity, to the extent of providing IP space no questions asked? On Jul 1, 2013 12:58 PM, "furio ercolessi" <furio+as@spin.it> wrote:
HI,
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:43:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote:
[...] Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text:
"6.6 Validity of an Assignment All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: the
assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer valid."
Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the motivation given to get the assignment.
This paragraph mentions *assignments*, which is (in the context of LIRs) what a LIR gives to it's customers.
So indeed, if a customer is lying to the LIR, the assignment falls back to the LIR (which makes a difference when the LIR's allocation is full and they can't get more space because their assignments are not valid).
This paragraph does not apply to the *allocation* give to the LIR from the RIPE NCC.
Sure, I fully understand that.
The question remains. Who is supposed to classify the range as invalid ? Are invalid assignments revoked by RIPE NCC ? If not, what the 6.6 wording is there for ? What happens if an assignment is revoked and the customer continues to use the same allocated and now unassigned space as if nothing happened ?
furio ercolessi