Re: Last Resort Registries

• To: Daniel Karrenberg < >
• From:
• Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 14:16:14 +0100 (BST)
• Cc:

> Additionally the Last-Resort registries form an anomaly in the RIPE NCC
> charging system, because they do not contribute to NCC funding while
> using NCC resources. 

This is understood.

> Consequently it has been proposed several times already to close down
> the Last-Resort registries. I think it is now time to finally take 
> such a step with a timeframe of end Q3/95 or at the end of the year.
> 
> Are there any serious problems with this step?

There will always be companies and individuals who have a need for
a last resort registry, and as long as the people here agree that
the InterNIC can and *will* provide that service than there should
not be any problem. However, if the InterNIC is unwilling to take
on this responsibility for the geographical area managed by the RIPE
on its "behalf" then someone still has to do it.

Maybe a declaration from all RIPE members that they will allocate
"real" address space free of charge to non-customers (prospective they
may be) would then guarentee the continuing of this service in some other
shape.

Or even have a last resort tariff that does charge for non-service provider
based address spaces and then this could fund any admin overhead.

Before anyone says it, I do not see the last two paragraphs as
contradictions.

Regards,
-- 
Peter Galbavy                                                 peter@localhost
@ Demon Internet                                      phone://44/181/371_3700
                                            http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/
                  snail://UK/N3_1TT/London/42_Hendon_Lane/Demon_Internet_Ltd/

• Post To The List:

• References:
  • Last Resort Registries
    • From: Daniel Karrenberg