Dear all,
I support your idea of enabling the self-service tools for legacy holders utilizing the existing procedures.
While I am sympathetic to automating as much as possible in order to avoid manual work for efficiency or speed reasons, I am not happy doing it to the detriment of accountability, data security or legal clarity. My understanding now is that such an automatic tool would enable holders of legacy address space to ignore possible earlier agreements to transfer parts of the address space to other parties and in practice revoke such address space possibly even without the knowledge and obviously without the consent of those parties. This revocation could in theory be performed at present with the help of the RIPE NCC, but due to the human checks it would only occur in case the contractual relationships and the authority over the address space are properly clarified. This latter part is something that does not allow for automation. Therefore I am against this proposal. It is much safer to continue to have the authority checks performed by the NCC. Best regards, Janos
Thanks, Billy
On Nov 2, 2015, at 2:34 PM, Erik Bais - A2B Internet <ebais@a2b-internet.com> wrote:
I would have to agree with Billy here.
If the goal of the NCC is to reduce the workload, the goal should be self-service, where possible. On the position that if the holder of the parent object should be the legitimate holder.. It should be that way imho..
If a part of a prefix is permanently delegated to another organisation, it should be documented in the registry and the parent prefix MUST (not should) be split up and deleted to show the actual ownership in the database.
If a legacy holder of a part of a larger prefix claims they are the actual legitimate holder, they would have to provide the same paperwork and if they don't want those rights at the current legal owner of their parent prefix, this might be a good incentive for them to get the paperwork updated..
There are already proper procedures to be able to document this in place.. So why not reduce the workload more for the NCC and provide the tools for self-service for legacy holders ?
Regards, Erik Bais
Op 2 nov. 2015 om 19:12 heeft William Sylvester <william.sylvester@addrex.net> het volgende geschreven:
Andrea,
Thank you for your comments. This feedback is interesting. To clarify, it would seem that RIPE NCC should not be intervening which the current process seems to encourage. As you stated “RIPE NCC has neither the mandate nor the resources to do this” This would indicate that providing better self-service capabilities for legacy number block holders would reduce the burden placed upon RIPE NCC while improving the ability for legacy holders to control and manage their records. This sounds like it would benefit all parties involved.
Thanks, Billy
On Oct 28, 2015, at 10:50 AM, Andrea Cima <andrea@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear all,
Please let me try to clarify a few points related to this thread.
There is currently a reclaim functionality in place for more specific INETNUM, DOMAIN and ROUTE objects, for address space that has been issued by the RIPE NCC. Here, there is a clear hierarchy in place: the LIR has an IP block with the status "allocated pa" and is the holder of the resources. The End User receives an IP block with the status "assigned pa” which must be returned when the services provided by the LIR are terminated (ripe-649). This proposal would therefore only affect legacy resources.
However, legacy IP addresses do not follow the same hierarchy as IP address space that was issued by the RIPE NCC. There is no policy mandating that address space be returned when services are terminated. Furthermore, it is not possible to know what agreements have been made over the years between the maintainers of parent and child objects.
We would like to highlight that such an implementation would mean interfering between legacy resource holders, by taking the following position: the organisation maintaining the parent object is the rightful holder of the IP block. This would ignore any potential agreements made over the years between the two parties.
It was suggested that the RIPE NCC could intervene and determine who the legitimate holder is where disputes arise. However, the RIPE NCC has neither the mandate nor the resources to do this, as outlined in our impact analysis for the policy proposal 2012-07, “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Holders": "When the situation presents itself where there are multiple layers of legacy resources distribution, it is the responsibility of the parties involved to find an agreement on which party is the legitimate holder of the legacy resource".
I hope this clarifies.
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC