Re: new swamp ?
- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 16:40:37 +0000
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:15:39PM +0000, James Aldridge wrote:
> Andre Stiphout wrote:
> > But in the case the pullups go, signifying the end of a network, and
> > there is no clear RIPE policy behind this, I suspect not many providers
> > will care about getting these customers renumbered if these customers
> > feel they retain sufficient global connectivity. The net result is an
> > increase of the size of the routing table.
> >
> > Is this detailed in the LIR contract or something and what is the value
> > of that contract if the LIR disappears, but the customers find
> > connectivity elsewhere?
> I think that ripe-185 is pretty clear on registry colsures:
> | If the registry is closing as a Local IR, but will continue to provide
> | Internet connectivity to its customers as an ISP, the customers can continue
> | to use the address space already assigned to them. Assignments made by a
> | registry that is closed remain valid for as long as the original criteria
> | under which they were assigned remains valid.
> |
> | If the registry will no longer provide Internet connectivity to customers with
> | assigned address space, the assigned address space should be retrieved from
> | the users as they renumber. It is the Local IR's responsibility to help its
> | customers with renumbering.
> and
> | In general a period of 3 months should be allowed for the end user to complete
> | the transition to the new addresses. RFC 2008 "Implications of Various Address
> | Allocation Policies for Internet Routing" [Rekhter96a] recommends a grace
> | period of at least 30 days, and no longer than six months. For exceptional
> | cases, where the end user requests to keep both assignments for more than 6
> | months, approval should be obtained for the proposed time frame from the RIPE
> | NCC.
> James
> (Co-chair RIPE LIR-WG)
Thanks, that is clear, but I'm worried that the LIR will no longer be
around to effect that change, as Kurtis also indicates could happen, but
in a different way.
I guess the onus then falls on the LIRs that start announcing fragments
of the original PA space. Will RIPE NCC track this to ensure that
renumbering does happen?
What I would like to see is that all SPs demand these customers, which I
assume to be smaller than a /20, to renumber as some of you already
indicated they will. This can only work across-the-board if RIPE NCC
ensures that it does happen by chasing the LIRs in question (yes/no?).
From Hank's email just now we can deduce that the latter part is not
likely to happen. Any comments from RIPE NCC how they see this evolving?
regards, andre
