And what if the LIR is complicit in this activity, to the extent of providing IP space no questions asked? <div class="gmail_quote">On Jul 1, 2013 12:58 PM, "furio ercolessi" <<a href="mailto:furio%2Bas@spin.it">furio+as@spin.it</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 10:14:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > HI, > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:43:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 03:29:23PM +0200, furio ercolessi wrote: > > > [...] > > > Now, RIPE-582 (February 2013) contains the following text: > > > > > > "6.6 Validity of an Assignment > > > All assignments are valid as long as the original criteria on which the > > > assignment was based are still valid and the assignment is properly > > > registered in the RIPE Database. If an assignment is made for a specific > > > purpose and that purpose no longer exists, the assignment is no longer > > > valid." > > > > > > Therefore, if the above premises are correct, spamming ranges are > > > classified "not valid" - simply because snowshoe spam was not the > > > motivation given to get the assignment. > > This paragraph mentions *assignments*, which is (in the context of LIRs) > what a LIR gives to it's customers. > > So indeed, if a customer is lying to the LIR, the assignment falls back > to the LIR (which makes a difference when the LIR's allocation is full > and they can't get more space because their assignments are not valid). > > This paragraph does not apply to the *allocation* give to the LIR from > the RIPE NCC. Sure, I fully understand that. The question remains. Who is supposed to classify the range as invalid ? Are invalid assignments revoked by RIPE NCC ? If not, what the 6.6 wording is there for ? What happens if an assignment is revoked and the customer continues to use the same allocated and now unassigned space as if nothing happened ? furio ercolessi </blockquote></div>