RE: [sig-policy]Policy on removal of inetnum objects

["Callis, Adam" <adam.callis@mci.com>]

Hank,
The idea of a status field in the whois is certainly an interesting idea.
It would definitly help us by allowing the record to stay in the database
but have it's status properly reflected.

We could take this a step further and add an expiration date to the inetnum
entry in the whois.

This would allow members to easily reconsile internal records with the APNIC
data.

Just my 2 cents.

Adam Callis



-----Original Message-----
From: Hank Nussbacher [mailto:hank@att.net.il]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:40 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Cc: bgreene@cisco.com; Terry Baranski; gih@telstra.net
Subject: [sig-policy]Policy on removal of inetnum objects


Hi.  My name is Hank Nussbacher and I am normally on the RIPE forums but 
someone from APNIC suggested I raise this issue here.

I am part of a volunteer team along with Barry Greene and Terry Baranski 
that contact Internet users (ISPs and corporates) when they start 
announcing something wrong on the Internet.  Recently, Geoff Huston updated 
his CIDR report - http://bgp.potaroo.net/cidr/#Bogons and up popped a 
number of APNIC customers that were announcing prefixes that were not 
allocated in APNIC.

Turns out that the customers membership was "closed" and APNIC tried 
contacting them with no success.  APNIC waits about 90-120 days before 
closing a member for non-payment.  APNIC then sends an email informing the 
upstream to stop announcing the IP range that has been reclaimed from the 
closed member. Then they remove all the database objects which are related 
to this organisation from the WHOIS database.  After a one year period, 
APNIC will start to reallocate/reassign that particular IP range to other 
organisations.

The problem is that the upstream or even the customer themselves continue 
to use the prefix and announce it to the Internet, thereby falling into the 
Bogon category.

I think 90-120 days is too little before removing the inetnum object.  I 
also think that a better a tactic would be to add a "remarks" to the 
inetnum or perhaps create a new "status" tag such as REVOKED.  I also think 
such a policy should be uniform between RIRs.

Comments?

-Hank

*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
*
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy