[anti-abuse-wg] AS201133

On Jun 30, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

> And conversely, why did RIPE, and/or any of its LIRs, deem it appropriate
> to grant one of RIPE's limited supply of AS numbers to a self-identified
> *Belizian* company, particularly when this was the company's first,
> last, and *only* AS number?
Because, as you pointed out, they have a network presence in the RIPE 
region.

> Wouldn't a LACNIC-issued AS number have
> done just as well?  If not, why not?
I am not familiar with LACNIC policies.

-- 
ciao,
Marco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 648 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20160701/7cd86772/attachment.sig>