Last Resort Registries
- Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:22:40 +0200
> Antonio_Blasco Bonito bonito@localhost writes:
> I think it *is* relevant: we are talking about CIDR aggregatable addresses.
> Some US providers do not want to provide addresses to customers in Europe
> from their own address space to save the possibility of continental
> aggregation. This is a point which needs to be clarified at least to
> correctly define the role of Regional registries.
I only know of one such case and this provider has since changed their
mind (regid eu.sprint).
> > > 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.
> That's not sufficient, I guess. We could start with a RIPE document but
> I'm convinced the issue is *not* restricted to Europe.
We start with a RIPE document. The problem with an RFCs is that there are
many highly contentious issues associated with a successor to RFC1466.
This document is not going to be agreed quickly. However we need a
revision of ripe-104. So far we have been waiting. ripe-104 is now
sufficiently outdated to go ahead with a revision anyway. I just hope
that we can agree on one in Europe.
I would prefer it to go the other way round but there seems to
be little choice.
> RIPE-181 became an RFC for the same reason. Am I right?
It is an informational RFC about a technology, not about address space