RE: [ga] Net-block issues

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

If you look at it from a process view-point, the MAPS technology can be used
to enforce registry policies. At this point, the issue of spam-control would
be subservient. The potential impact on the net is so large that it dwarfs
anything the inclusive root operators could do. The market-share is already
extant. The problem is now. Not doing anything may be an option, but it
isn't a very good one, IMHO.

Yes, I agree that what MAPS is doing may not be all that desirable (MAPS
market-share may belie that statement). However, it's a scalable technology
that could lend itself to other uses. More important, as MAPS becomes a
fee-based operation, the various blacklists will spawn children that may be
less than perfect. Synchronization issues will abound. This is MUCH worse
than DNS because there are no agreed common interfaces. We can make
multi-root work, but I am uncertain that we can make multi-MAPS work,
especially if the various blacklist operators don't choose to cooperate.

The danger remains, an innocent entity may wind up paying $256-$512/month
for a net-block (/24) that doesn't work and neither the registry, or the
ISP, will be able to do anything about it. Now if the registry were
operating that service then there would be some recourse. One would hope
that there would be improved coordination, at least.

The driver is that MAPS is going fee-based, which is guaranteed to reduce
uniformity of the blacklists.

|> From: William X Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com]
|> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:33 AM
|> 
|> Registries should not be involved in MAPS like operations at all.
|> 
|> You can't seriously be suggesting that?
|> 
|> MAPS is not a functionality, it is a disfunctionality, and 
|> if it is to
|> exist at all, it should be managed privately.
|> 
|> Wednesday, Wednesday, August 15, 2001, 8:38:35 AM, Roeland 
|> Meyer wrote:
|> > The fundimental process disconnect here is that, IMHO, the various
|> > registries should be performing the MAPS function as part 
|> of their policy
|> > enforcement mechanism. This is not written into any of the
|> > registrar/registry agreements.
|> 
|> > If anything argues for a centralised systems approach, the MAPS
|> > functionality does. IMHO, this makes it an ICANN issue. 
|> Yes, this also
|> > politicizes it somewhat. No, some NANOG denizens won't 
|> like it and that is
|> > guaranteed.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html