[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
- Subject: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
- From: spedersen.lists at gmail.com (Sean Pedersen)
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 12:48:40 -0700
- In-reply-to: <95[email protected]>
- References: <95[email protected]>
I appreciate everyone's input and will incorporate it into our internal policies going forward.
I also want to assure everyone who has taken the time to read or respond that we're going about this methodically; our customer is involved and is responding promptly and their customer is has opened a case with the RIR. We're in the process of following up with the RIR. Our goal is not to cause an 'operational headache' for anyone, but exactly the opposite.
Thanks again for all of your feedback and responses.
From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Naslund, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 11:59 AM
To: nanog at nanog.org
Subject: Re: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
The fact that it is a newer customer would make me talk to the RIR direct and verify that a dispute is really in progress. I would also look at some looking glasses and see if the prefix is being announced elsewhere, if so that might indicate that your customer is indeed stepping on a legit owner. I would also make it clear to the new customer that they are on thin ice here to light a fire under their process. Let them know that it is up to them to convince you that they are the legit owner. No one wants to lose a customer but they are threatening your business and putting you in legal jeopardy if they are not legit.
>From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces at nanog.org] On Behalf Of Sean Pedersen
>Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 12:39 PM
>To: nanog at nanog.org
>Subject: RE: Proof of ownership; when someone demands you remove a prefix
>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.
>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.
>I'm definitely leaning toward "let the customer (or customer's customer) and the RIR sort it out" if the POC validates the request weighed responsibly >against customer age. However, from a customer service perspective, I think we owe it to our customers to make sure a request is legitimate before we >knock them offline. With a limited toolset to validate that information, I can't help but feel conflicted.
>I appreciate all the feedback this thread has generated so far!