Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

[Tim Streater <tim.streater@localhost]

At 14:51 08/04/2008, Shane Kerr wrote:
> Frederic,
>
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:54AM +0200, Frederic wrote:
> > Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a écrit :
> > > Max,
> > >
> > > I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry!
> > >
> > > Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the
> > > situation where we have:
> > >
> > > IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient
> > >
> > > Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR
> > > and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable.
> >
> >
> > why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder
> > thru Database information.
> >
> > Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
> >
> > a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news
> > about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision.
> >
> > To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good
> > way.  To force Fees is not good too.
>
> To be clear, I don't care about a signed contract, and I really don't
> care about fees.  What you are talking about is an agreement between
> two parties, the RIPE NCC and the address holder. Something like
> this(*):
>
>   PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE
>   NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused
>   pool.
How do you know if it's up to date - or even listened to? Best way is a contract that says they pay a sum yearly. If the cheque doesn't arrive, or bounces, you take the space back. A small sum like ?100/year would suffice.

-- Tim