morrowc.lists at gmail.com
Mon Sep 14 21:02:50 UTC 2009
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
>> I haven't followed this entire string. Are you saying ARIN is repeatedly handing out address space to known abusers? If that's the case then yes, some form of policy should be worked on.
> i might walk more slowly and with a bit less self-righteousness. this
> is not a simple area. are we sure we want the rirs to become the net
> content police? how are they to judge?
that was part of my set of points... but if there is a feeling (in the
community) that ARIN should be doing something differently, bitching
about it on nanog-l or ppml isn't helping. What does help is following
the proper process for ARIN policies or suggestions.
> e.g., prudent isps act against a customer when there is a court order,
> not when the net gossip says they're bad actors. i.e., the decision of
> who is a bad actor is passed on to the society's normal judicial
It's worked out so well so far, yea.... though there are at least 2
things being discussed:
1) not allocating to known offendors (even those who've been through
the court system and had judgements against them, which would be
following your proposed path)
2) dealing with rbl'd netblocks once they are returned to ARIN and the
re-allocated to 'new' people.
Both really do, to not just be this same discussion in 12 more moons,
need either a policy proposal through ARIN or suggestion to the
arin-suggest system. As an aside, what happens to things in
APNIC/AFRINIC/RIPE in these circumstances? Say what will happen to:
18.104.22.168/20 in RIPE-land, or 22.214.171.124/20 in APNIC-land?
More information about the NANOG