[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Thu Jan 17 21:05:52 CET 2008
* 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.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]