[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

Adam Thompson athompson at merlin.mb.ca
Mon Jan 28 11:47:34 EST 2019


I would phrase it in far less colourful language, and my motivations are almost entirely opposite, but with the same end result: I don’t like this proposal.
If I have a /29 or larger, and it’s sending spam or doing anything else anti-social, I want to know about it.  Relaxing the reassignment requirements (whether that’s in fact or in appearance only) will guarantee that nearly all ISPs will do the minimum possible, specifically not include any relevant contact info for me.
From at least this one tiny piece of the community, no this proposal does not have support right now.
-Adam


Adam Thompson
Consultant, Infrastructure Services
[1DE92D93]
100 - 135 Innovation Drive
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 6A8
(204) 977-6824 or 1-800-430-6404 (MB only)
athompson at merlin.mb.ca<mailto:athompson at merlin.mb.ca>
www.merlin.mb.ca<http://www.merlin.mb.ca/>

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of Marilson Mapa
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2019 1:43 AM
To: hostmaster at uneedus.com
Cc: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

The elimination of any reasonable means of contact in the event of abuse it is an aberration and characterizes at least complicity with unlawful acts. The ISPs need to stop hiding and protect spammers and scammers. 500 billion spam and scam a day are not enough? What is the new goal? A trillion?
You, ISPs, RIRs, and Registrars represent GGM21C, the Great Global Mafia of the 21st Century. We know that people's personal and financial data are worth gold these days. Creating ISPs and inventing scammers to steal data is a problem for authorities. Not to prohibit a spammer, or scammer, from continuing to send his trash after being reported, is also a criminal attitude of sociopaths who abound in that environment. This is the rule with the complicity of RIRs, Registrars and ICANN. But the discomfort that complaints bring to ISPs is being eliminated through policies such as the EU GDPR and re-ordering in RIRs.
The threat of arresting the Facebook owner or billionaire fines such as that imposed by the EU on Google will not be enough to force an ethical stance on the part of the Mafia. The answer to this criminal behavior will come in the worst way: politicians, under pressure from society, will say how free internet should be "free." Then do not complain.
This policy intends to hide and protect a customer regardless of their behavior.
Marilson

Em sáb, 26 de jan de 2019 às 23:18, <hostmaster at uneedus.com<mailto:hostmaster at uneedus.com>> escreveu:
Looking at this, I am a NO as it is currently written.

This section deals with /29 or more IPv4 addresses, or stated another way,
8 or more addresses.  Someone who is running such a network in today's
IPv4 exhausted world needs to have a means to contact them directly in the
event of abuse from their network.  The reassign-simple does not provide
for this, unless you consider postal mail a reasonable means of contact
for abuse reports.  I have ALWAYS directed abuse reports by either email
or telephone, as a letter is not fast enough for an ongoing abuse problem.

As for the current ISP impact in regard to this policy as it currently
exists before amendment, the greatest majority of ISP customers, both
Business and Residential only have a single IPv4 address or less (CGnat)
and therefore are exempt from this policy. Only larger networks with
multiple hosts are likely to have 8 or more IPv4 addresses and subject to
this policy.  Those with a /29 or more are very likely a very small amount
of the total ISP customers, but are also the ones with multiple hosts that
would be more likely to be compromised compared those who just have
machines behind a NAT router that cannot accept inbound traffic without a
router that is programmed to allow it. I doubt this policy change will
have much change at most ISP's, since the customer base it addresses is
very small.

I would also suggest the residential exemption be eliminated for /29 or
more, as nearly all residential IPv4 use today is NAT, rather than public
IPv4 address assignment for each host.  We have talked of the problem of
spammers on this list using such /29 or more of residential space, that
are protected by the current privacy rules for residental customers, and
their abuse reports being ignored by their upstream.

Looking at the differences between the Detailed and Simple reassign
templates, I do see one thing that would merit a change.  It is that the 2
fields that are most often used for abuse reporting (telephone and email)
are missing from the simple reassignment, and fields that are rarely used
for abuse reporting (mailing address) are instead present.  This is a
decision that I would like to see changed.

I would have no problem with a template change to reassign simple to only
have Name, Contact Email and Telephone number, and omitting all the
mailing address fields.  If that change were made, I would have no problem
with the proposal, as then the Simple Reassignment will at least provide
me with a reasonable means of contact in the event of abuse from that
network.

Eliminating the requirement for a Detailed Assignment, without changing
the fields contained in a Simple Assignment will have the effect of
eliminating the abuse contacts for that network.  I think that would be
wrong.

Albert Erdmann
Network Administrator
Paradise On Line Inc.


On Fri, 25 Jan 2019, Alyssa Moore wrote:

> Helloooo PPML,
>
> It's been a couple weeks since there's been any action here, but it's time
> to shake off the winter and think about some policy! Woo!
>
> This proposal has to do with clarifying the language and requirements
> around reassignments. Please take a look and let your AC know if you think
> we're on the right track or not.
>
> Cheers,
> AM
>
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 3:55 PM ARIN <info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net>> wrote:
>
>> On 15 November 2018 the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
>> "ARIN-prop-258: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1" as a
>> Draft Policy.
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6 is below and can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2018_6.html
>>
>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
>> evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
>> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as
>> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these
>> principles are:
>>
>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>> * Technically Sound
>> * Supported by the Community
>>
>> The PDP can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>>
>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Sean Hopkins
>> Policy Analyst
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1
>>
>> Problem Statement:
>>
>> Current NRMP section “Reassignment and Reallocation Information” is
>> being interpreted by some organizations to require a “detailed
>> reassignment” for all customers.  Under the current reassignment schema,
>> only a “detailed reassignment or reallocation” contains fields for
>> “organizational information”.
>>
>> This policy intends to simplify the reassignment requirements by noting
>> that only a customer’s name is required.  Thus a “simple reassignment”
>> can be used for most reassignments.
>>
>> Policy Statement:
>>
>> Replace section 4.2.3.7.1 with the following:
>>
>> 4.2.3.7.1. Reassignment and Reallocation Information
>>
>> Each IPv4 reassignment or reallocation containing a /29 or more
>> addresses shall be registered via a directory services system which
>> meets the standards set forth in section 3.2.
>>
>> Reassignment registrations must include each customer name, except where
>> specifically exempted by this policy.  Reassignment registrations shall
>> only include point of contact (POC) information if either: (1) requested
>> by the customer; or (2) the reassigned block is intended to be routed
>> and announced outside of the provider's network.
>>
>> Reallocation registrations must contain the customer’s organization name
>> and appropriate point of contact (POC) information.
>>
>> Comments:
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: immediate
>> _______________________________________________
>> ARIN-PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
>>
>_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net<mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190128/eb696566/attachment-0002.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2638 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20190128/eb696566/attachment-0002.png>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list