[anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Fri Nov 12 14:39:10 CET 2010
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:53:47PM +0000, David Freedman wrote: > Can anybody explain why they feel this should not be done for allocation > objects (i.e PA) as well? I think this is completely crazy that we dont Because those kind of thata are already in the database. Allocations goes directly to LIRs, PA assignments are always under PA allocations. > have this already and would love to know what kind of misconceived ideas > about privacy may have gone into excluding this data in the first place. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]