[120487] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Article on spammers and their infrastructure
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Vegoda)
Tue Dec 22 19:26:33 2009
From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
To: Jon Lewis <jlewis@lewis.org>, Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 16:25:43 -0800
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0912221815010.22812@soloth.lewis.org>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 22/12/2009 3:36, "Jon Lewis" <jlewis@lewis.org> wrote:
[...]
> They may be. I don't agree that it's relevant. You can disagree with th=
e
> RIPE wording or with RIPE policies, or maybe I'm misinterpreting
>=20
> ASSIGNED PA: This address space has been assigned to an End User for us=
e
> with services provided by the issuing LIR. It cannot be kept when
> terminating services provided by the LIR.
>=20
> My interpretation of the above is ASSIGNED PA is the equivalent of my
> assigning IP space to a customer who either buys transit (connectivity)
> from us or colo's or buys server hosting from us where they will use that
> IP space. We don't simply lease out IP space for "customers" to use as
> they please on other networks.
I am sure that your interpretation was the original intent of the policy
text. However, the wording could also be read in a way that allows an LIR t=
o
just provide registry services, without providing any connectivity services=
.
Regards,
Leo=20
