Dear Colleagues,
I would like to share discussions in the Japanese community on improving accuracy of IP Address WHOIS.
We had discussions at JPOPM31 Meeting in December and on the dedicated mailing list, based on presentation by FBI (as in APNIC42 and in ARIN38).
http://www.jpopf.net/JPOPM31Program?action=AttachFile&do=view&target...
This was facilitated by Policy WG, which consists by volunteer members of our community.
Comments expressed by the Japanese community on WHOIS accuracy discussions are as below.
I hope this could serve as a reference for discussions in the APNIC community.
Comment 1
To have dedicated POC in WHOIS for LEAs:
- Either to create a dedicated POC for LEAs, or clearly state handling requests from LEAs as the role of POCs
- This may raise the priority in handling requests/maintaining up to date POCs
Comment 2
Provide dedicated POCs for LEAs separately from WHOIS which is public
Comment 3
Rather than to address WHOIS accuracy on its own, consider measures comprehensively with IRR and/or Routing Database
- There is low incentive to maintain up to date WHOIS objects on its own
Comment 4
As an incentive to maintain accuracy, publicly mark objects which are not updated for a certain period.
This idea came from a practice in JPIRR. Objects not updated after a certain period are automatically deleted.
- Unlike IRR data, people may not are even if objects are automatically deleted in WHOIS.
(As there is little practical operational effect without a WHOIS object, whereas missing IRR objects may affect routing)
- Therefore came up with an idea that instead of deleting not updated objects, publicly mark those objects in WHOIS.
Rationales as below:
- Maintaining up to date objects for WHOIS is defined under the contract between APNIC and account holders.
However in reality, the information is not maintained up to date, which indicates a need for some incentives or penalties
- Incentives to maintain accurate information is important. OTOH, Routing DB/IRR may not sufficiently serve the purpose.
Information registered in peering DBs is not always accurate, and its usage is different from WHOIS.
(Frequency of updates differ by organisations, it is dedicated for peering)
Information are often not updated in RADB and other IRRs and there is no properly defined mechanism to delete data.
Duplicate registrations with different information are often found.
- Publicly marking objects not updated over a certain period may create some incentives to maintain accurate information.
- Additional measures such as informing LIRs with over certain % of un-updated objects and/or putting some penalties may be considered as an option.
Regards,
Izumi
---
Izumi Okutani
Policy Liaison
Japan Network Information Center (JPNIC)
On 2016/10/25 22:47, Paul Wilson wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
For those who took an interest in the presentation on “Public Safety and Accuracy of IP Address WHOIS” which was given at APNIC 42 in Colombo, there has been a similar presentation today at the RIPE 73 meeting in Madrid. In this case a much more detailed case study was given, to show the concerns of the law enforcement community.
Presentation file is here:
https://ripe73.ripe.net/presentations/54-Presentation_RIPE_NCC_73_Madrid_-_W...
Video archive is here:
https://ripe73.ripe.net/archives/video/1435
All the best,
Paul.
Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC dg@apnic.net mailto:dg@apnic.net
http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
