Re: [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
-
To: Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost
-
From: Florian Weimer fw@localhost
-
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:05:52 +0100
* Leo Vegoda:
> 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?
I don't know what the sanctions would look like, either.
>> 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.
As far as I can tell based on a few examples, it isn't.
|
