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

Last Resort Registries

  • To: Antonio_Blasco Bonito < >
  • From: Daniel Karrenberg < >
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 15:22:40 +0200
  • Cc:

  > 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sufficiently outdated to go ahead with a revision anyway.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 
policies.

Daniel





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