Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC11) Database Registration

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Leo and all,

> Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp> wrote:
> >Thanks Nakagawa-san for listing up the contents.
> >I think all the major points are coverered but added a few comments.
> >
> >> - Definition of Database
> >>    In this policy, "database" means the Whois Databases of RIRs and NIRs.
> >>    At present, APNIC, RIPE-NCC, ARIN and LACNIC have databases.
> >This situation may change over time with new RIRs and NIRs providing
> >the database, so how about we simply refer to them as RIR/NIR database
> >without specifying the organizations?
> 
> In another message you wrote:
> 
>  > we need to know who to contact in cases of network
>  > abuse, and if a particular range is delegated to a downstream ISP,
>  > then, that information should be made available to the public.
>  >
>  > Then again, it could be argued that as long as LIRs look after abuse
>  > complaints, then they do not need to register allocations for their
>  > downstream.
> 
> But, it has also been argued that the phrase "registry database" should 
> not include LIRs' databases (or their downstream customers' databases).
> 
> If this is the case it appears that these guidelines are expecting an 
> LIR to handle all abuse complaints on behalf of their customers but 
> requires them to register their customers' assignments (as well as 
> allocations) anyway. Is this consistent?
> 
> If this is the case I think that this document (or another document) 
> should give a (set of) reason(s) for requiring registration of 
> assignments in a public whois database.
> 
> I realise that some people might feel that doing so is stating the 
> obvious. That should not necessarily be seen as a bad thing. By doing so 
> and writing down the obvious we ensure that we know why a decision was 
> made in a particular way when the decision is reviewed in the future.
I think I couldn't explain my position very well, so let me explain again.

<Assignments> 
 - all assignments must be registered in RIR/NIR database
 - registrations are required for assignments through downstream ISPs
   as well

<Allocations to downstream ISPs>
 It is ambiguous in the policy document, and these are the
 possibilities in implementation:

 a) All allocations to downstream ISPs must be registered in RIR/NIR
    database 
     e.g) If a /40 allocation is made to a downtream ISP, this will be
          registered in the database

    Pros: Appropriate contact point(dowstream ISP) available on whois
          database even when no assignments are made under that range
    Cons: It will not be considered in calculating utilization, so no
          strong motivation
          It is rare case where allocations are made to downstream
          ISPs, but no assignments are made/when registered
          assignments do not have updated information

 b) Allocations to downstream ISPs should not be registered in RIR/NIR
    database
     e.g) Even if a /40 allocation is made to a downtream ISP, it will
          not be registered in the database
        
    Pros: Reduces extra work for LIRs to register downstream allocations
   
    Cons: No appropriate point of contact for sub-allocated range when
          allocations are made to downstream ISP, but no assignments
          are registered

 c) It is upto LIRs to register allocations for downtream ISPs in the
    RIR/NIR database
    e.g) If a /40 allocation is made to a downtream ISP, it is upto an
         LIR whether to register this sub-allocated range

    Pros: Allows flexibility. LIRs do not need to register
          sub-allocations if they agree to be an abuse contact on
          behalf of its downtream ISPs

    Cons: Inconsistency in database registration

I hope this clarifies my intention.

Personally, I think option a) is most desirable, but since each
options has its pros and cons, I am interested to know the comments
from the others too. What do you all think?


Izumi
JPNIC