[address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Lu Heng
h.lu at anytimechinese.com
Mon Mar 26 15:28:31 CEST 2018
Hi What’s the difference between the below description and an inter-RIR transfer policy? And as current policy text, there is no restriction on using any of RIR resource on globe level. On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 20:28 Martin Huněk <hunekm at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Dne pondělí 26. března 2018 13:35:47 CEST, Staff napsal(a): > > Hi everybody, > > > > On 26.03.2018 2:56, Max Tulyev wrote: > > > If this GIR runs parallel to existing RIRs and in competition with all > > > them - that's a very good idea, I support it. > > > > Another one IR is good idea and should be created. > > > > GIR with RIRs - this is good idea too. GIR should be created and be > > independent. And members of RIR should have ability where to have there > > resources support. > > > > I support. > > I don't think that it is such a good idea. First of all, I can see the > problem > of such organizations which resident in multiple RIR regions, however I do > think that I can be solved by bilateral agreement between current RIRs, > rather > than creating "GIR" (something between IANA and current RIRs. > > I can also see that someone might see it as an opportunity to get yet > another > resources, which they cannot from current RIRs. However there is no more > IPv4 > in IANA pool, so we would have to talk about IPv6 only "GIR" with only 32b > ASN > (in contrast with LACNIC policy text). And when I look at IPv6 policies at > RIPE region (at least), there are quite open-minded with their allocation > size. > > So do we really need yet another RIR? In my opinion No. It would solve just > marginal problem which does have simpler solution. > > The solution might be an Inter-RIR status (e.g. source: RIPE-INTER-RIR) > based > upon agreement between LIR and multiple RIRs (in which case the resources > would be assigned/allocated from one of them). > > Example: > 1) AfriNIC based LIR would like to operate part of its network in RIPE > region > 2) LIR asks AfriNIC for approval to operate outside of RIR region and > provides > documentation with reasoning and corresponding RIR in which region LIR > would > like to operate > 3) AfriNIC decides if the LIR's proposal is fine. > 4) AfriNIC asks RIPE: Is it OK? May that LIR in this case operate this > network > in your region? > 4) If both RIRs agrees on LIR's proposal, the AfriNIC marks LIR's resources > accordingly (like moving it to separate DB or something like operates in: > RIPE) > > Certainly no RIR would volunteer their IPv4 pool to new "GIR" as LACNIC > proposal suggest and there is no more "global" IPv4 pool available... > > Sincerely > Martin Hunek > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20180326/48431d04/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] LACNIC "Proposal to create a Global Internet Registry (GIR)"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]