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

Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)

  • To: Florian Weimer fw@localhost
  • From: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost
  • Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 19:16:18 +0100
  • Cc: <michael.dillon@localhost, address-policy-wg@localhost


On 16 Jan 2008, at 18:56, Florian Weimer wrote:

* michael dillon:

- No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6.
- special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders

How do you handle lack of payment? Reuse the prefix? That seems like a
bad idea to me.

If this is a bad idea...

I would also see a mandate to keep current address information,
including legal details (register of companies number etc.) in the WHOIS
database.  RIPE NCC will investigate cases if proof is presented that
something is wrong in the database (bouncing email, non-working phone
number, bouncing snail mail, lack of matching entry in the register of
companies).

... then what is the enforcement mechanism here?

You've just defined a system where the RIPE NCC will guarantee the uniqueness of address space for a one-time fee *and* allow registrants to remain anonymous after the first 12 months. I can see a definite market for something like this.

Regards,

Leo




 

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