About RIPE | Contact  | Search | Sitemap    
Homepage RIPE  
RIPE Community Mail Archives
search  
     
RIPE Navigation Ends
About RIPE Maillists
Maillists Archive
Global Lists
Non Active Lists
RIPE NCC Navigation Ends
Next Section
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: [address-policy-wg] Draft: "status:" re-evaluation

  • To: Sebastian Abt < >
    Gert Doering < >
  • From: Stephen Burley < >
  • Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 16:27:55 +0100
  • Cc: Shane Kerr < >
    Address Policy WG < >
    Database WG < >


I disagree. Your customer should request a seperate "SUB-ALLOCATED PA"
block for his customer or otherwise if he want's to look like being
independent to his customer, he should become RIPE member. I hardly
can't see advantages of making sub-sub-allocations (maybe you could
point them out?).
Oh i wish i had access to my old mail that i sent to this list. There is an argument for this but i fits the multi-national internet registry (MIR) structure much better. It is not necessarily for your customer but more a way of trying to control your internal routing tables. Does anyone have a copy of the MIR proposal they could repost. Which may help explain.

Regards
Stephen Burley
Internet Communications consultant
Africonnect



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

Next Section
     About RIPE | Site Map | LIR Portal | About the RIPE NCC | Contact | Copyright Statement
RIPE.NET Homepage LIR Portal RIPE Community