Re: RIPE Handle document

[Kevin Hoadley <]

Marten wrote:
>Well, we decided NOT to go for this model, since it would probably
>create more confusion than it would solve. The tricky but here was
>that we wanted to make things more distributed, without confusing
>people with regard to nic handles. If there is only a limited set of
>registries handing out handles, things can be overseen. Having each
>and every registry assign their own handles with different postfixes
>is a major pain for us, since we are already dealing with 50+
>registries. Try and tell them all to do things right ... We will be
>the ones chasing after duplicate nic handles, duplicate persons, and
>more of these ....

I can understand these problems, however I'd also like to raise a vote
for distributed assignment, preferably by assigned number ranges (with
attendant guards on the RIPE DB to automatically check the ranges ?)
rather than an ever expanding list of authority prefixes/suffixes.

However my reasons are somewhat selfish, as I think it will difficult to
fit the process of obtaining a RIPE handle from the NCC (with a possibly
quite long delay depending on the network and how well the relevant mail
systems are working) into the exisitng automation system I use for the
UK registry !

Kevin Hoadley, JIPS NOSC.