Re: [dp-tf] Re: [apwg-chairs] Re: 91.198.71.0 - 91.198.71.255

[Gert Doering gert@localhost]

Hi,

just some more food for thought:

On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:52:29PM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> >Actually I think that this wouldn't be easy today (given that PI
> >stands for "independent"), but with the new contract framework, we
> >*do* have the instruments to tag PI/AS objects to "who is the
> >currently-responsible LIR for this"?
> 
> Why would we care which LIR sent in a request for a PI assignment and  
> why would we want to require "independent" networks to maintain a  
> contractual relationship with an LIR?

Because the RIR wants to know how to reach the PI holder.  Either they
have a direct relation - or if not, they need to go through a LIR.

(At least that seems to be what the RIPE community and the NCC agrees
to be the way forward).

Whether or not this relationship should be made publically viewable is
a completely different discussion, of course.

[..]
> Identifying LIRs strikes me as a mechanism to label LIRs as either  
> "good" or "bad" and doing this is at best likely to besmirch innocent  
> customers who are unrelated to any abuse. At worst it is likely to  
> cause them problems operating their networks. "Guilty by association"  
> is something we should try to avoid.

Actually it goes along with the responsibility thing of address 
distribution.  If the LIR doesn't do a proper job in maintaining contact
data for the end user, the blame falls back onto the LIR, and I think
that this is actually not such a bad thing.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  110584

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

Attachment: pgpZMqxzI1jna.pgp
Description: PGP signature