Hi, On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 07:03:21PM +0200, Aris Lambrianidis wrote: > Lastly, 6.1.2 mentions that "other uses are forbidden". Policies looking > to enforce certain conditions are > only meaningful if there is a framework for: > a) Monitoring policy violations with accompanying documentation > describing frequency, methodology etc. > b) Describing disciplinary actions
Disciplinary actions in address policy violation is fairly much
straightforward - if you get a block of addresses that comes with
restrictions, and you ignore these even if told to stop doing so,
the assignment is void and the address space returns to the RIPE NCC.
This is the way all our policy framework is organized - like if a LIR
receives an allocation and assigns space from that to their customers,
the allocation holder is required to provide correct documentation.
If this is not done, and the NCC gets to know about it, they will ask
the holder to correct it and this is not happening, the address space
will be reclaimed.
Now, regarding the "monitoring" bit - since we're all mostly well-behaved
here, describing the limitations and requirements upfront and only acting
in cases where the NCC is informed about misuse works fairly well in
practice (though some people in the anti-abuse community might not agree
with me here).
Gert Doering
-- APWG chair
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
