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

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

On 17 Jan 2008, at 19:42, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Leo Vegoda:
>
> > > The same as above.  This would be an additional process, on top of  
> > > the
> > > yearly fee, not a replacement.
> > I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you elaborate, please?
> Yearly fee plus action from the RIPE NCC if someone presents proof  
> that
> the contact details may be invalid.  If the resource holder does not
> rectify the situation, sanctions comparable to those for lack of  
> payment
> apply.
If the sanctions mean removal from the RIPE database with a guarantee  
that the prefix will never be re-issued by the RIPE NCC then you have  
a guaranteed unique network for a one-time fee. Is this actually  
'sanctions' or a desirable feature?
> > It's not all that hard. You can easily find all resources linked to  
> > an
> > LIR's Organisation ID in the whois database. You can do it easily on
> > the RIPE NCC's web site:
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/whois?-r+-K+-i+org+ORG-NCC1-RIPE
> The org: field is optional, and it does not necessarily contain a
> pointer to the LIR.
My understanding was that all address space allocated or assigned  
directly by the RIPE NCC has the registrant's organisation object  
referenced in the inetnum object. If this is the case, all an LIR's  
allocations are linked directly to it. I could be wrong, but I thought  
the reference was a requirement enforced by the RIPE NCC.
Regards,

Leo