[address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Thu Jun 11 19:35:17 CEST 2015
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 07:09:24PM +0200, Roger Jrgensen wrote: >I'm okay with letting RIPE NCC use some judgment. I am unsure if >they are (RIPE NCC). And sooner or later someone will complain. >How, and who should deal with that? I think the current complain >system can handle it with some minor tuning. Perhaps the system that was in use for >/16 allocation requests could be used for "questionable"requests. (IPRA -> IPRA managers -> Board) >way here we go (oh, and I don't think APGW is the right place >for this discussion). Perhaps not, but APWG is what we have - and I prefer this to backroom chats resulting in policy proposals that their supporters don't even have to make any effort to defend. >We could turn the table around, show that you got IPv6 deployed >as a requirement. hardly possible these days except in limited circumstances. Try an MPLS design when all you have is ipv6. >Or we could request that new LIR show that >they actual are doing business as in showing an approved >accounting from last year (not sure if I use the right words >here...), point is that they should show they actual are doing >business before they can get IPv4. Not every LIR is a business and not every LIR is a company. It is still "legal" for individuals to become a LIR and get resources for private use and long may it be possible. > This will however actual >exclude them from interacting with any IPv4 marked for a while, >but, really, I don't care much about that problem. Thereby killing whatever startup culture exists in the RIPE Service Region? Excellent vindication of my point about some randomers on a mailing list determining the fate of Internet business on two continents... >term problem.... another way around that problem is to buy/lease >IPv4 until they can get their from RIPE NCC. Thus giving the exact same people (resource speculators) a captive market and losing the NCC some potential members in the process. rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Next steps for new LIRs
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]