nanog mailing list archives

Re: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix


From: Job Snijders <job () ntt net>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 18:59:35 +0100

Dear Sean,

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:38:49AM -0700, Sean Pedersen wrote:
This is more or less the situation we're in. We contacted the customer
and they informed us the matter is in dispute with the RIR and that
their customer (the assignee) is in the process of resolving the
issue. We have to allow them time to accomplish this. I've asked for
additional information to help us understand the nature of the
dispute. In that time we received another request to stop announcing
the prefix(s) in addition to a new set of prefixes, and a threat to
contact our upstream providers as well as ARIN - which is not the RIR
the disputed resources are allocated to.

I've seen disputes too between end users and RIRs - usually this is due
to non-payment. It can be helpful to do two things: set a reasonable
deadline for the customer to resolve this, and verify with the RIR
whether the dispute is actually ongoing or whether the RIR closed the
case. Example case: customer said they were in dispute, but RIR
indicated that the case was closed. If the RIR closed the case, I'd lean
to dropping the announcement.

This is a new(er) customer, so there is some merit to dropping the
prefix and letting them sort it out based on the current RIR
contact(s). However, there is obvious concern over customer service
and dropping such a large block of IPs. 

Size of the block often is a poor indicator for legitimacy.

Kind regards,

Job


Current thread: