ARIN's role as the entity engaged in legal contractual relationship with
the previous owners of the space puts it in the position to insert
enforceable contract clauses to deter and/or mitigate "graffiti" in
That's complicated. How do you define "graffiti"? Just for starters.
Given that even a whitehat network can generate occasional complaints,
and most commercial networks generate various levels of cruft, would
you consider it "graffiti" if a block of IP space assigned to a hotel
wifi network in Seattle got itself permanently ACL'ed by a college in
Miami, when someone inadvertently omitted the port 25 filter, and as a
result, the mail admins in Miami judged that the likelihood of ever
receiving legitimate mail from there was about 0.0001%? How would you
Policy proposals probably are not required for this.
Space originally from outside ARIN, thats another kettle of fish.
ARIN is also in the position to refuse allocations for entities who dont
clean up after themselves. Policy likely required.
How exactly do you do that? Spammers don't mind submitting fraudulent
applications. How does ARIN tell that SpamNetA is actually the same
operation as FooIspB, even though they might be legally registered as
And finally, if this problem continues to worsen (as it likely will when
greenfield becomes scarce), a viable business opportunity should emerge
for reputable organizations to do cleanup on behalf of the new owners,
for a reasonable fee/retainer and after suitable financial/contractual
Cost of business, efficiency of scale and all that. Perhaps the bill
could even be sent to the previous owners.
That's likely to stand up in court. Not.
Operationally, I dont see how the problem can be mitigated solely by
those who are already informed.
I agree that it's problematic.