<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Last Resort Registries

  • To: (Antonio_Blasco Bonito)
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Thu, 20 Jul 1995 16:56:14 +0200
  • Cc:

  > bonito@localhost (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes:
  > 
  > Unfortunately there are still cases of ISPs not providing registry
  > services for their customers.  For example US providers selling
  > connectivity in Europe do not provide IP addresses. As far as I know
  > they do not want to be part of the European Regional IR.

I do not know of *any* significant cases of this.
The issue which regional IR a provider gets allocations from
is not relevant in this discussion.

  > > 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 can eventually be solved in some way...

I agree, if we decide to keep them around we will have to charge them
like any other registry. Note however, that this is not the main argument
for doing away with them.

  > I think it could be done but there is a strong need for a document
  > explaining the new address assignment policy. 

Fully agree!

  > I think this document
  > should have worldwide applicability and be published as an RFC.

Do not agree. For European Last-Resort registries a RIPE document is
sufficient.

  > Local IRs need such a reference when they have to answer to strange
  > address assignment requests eventually coming from network managers
  > or small providers located in dispersed sites around the world.

Yep.

Daniel




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>