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

[Denis Walker denis@localhost]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> * 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.
>   

The "org:" attribute is optional as far as syntax is concerned. But
business logic applied after the syntax checks makes it mandatory on an
allocation inet(6)num object.

regards
Denis Walker
Business Analyst RIPE NCC