RIPE Handle document
Kevin Hoadley kevin at nosc.ja.net
Tue Dec 7 17:36:15 CET 1993
Marten wrote: >Well, we decided NOT to go for this model, since it would probably >create more confusion than it would solve. The tricky but here was >that we wanted to make things more distributed, without confusing >people with regard to nic handles. If there is only a limited set of >registries handing out handles, things can be overseen. Having each >and every registry assign their own handles with different postfixes >is a major pain for us, since we are already dealing with 50+ >registries. Try and tell them all to do things right ... We will be >the ones chasing after duplicate nic handles, duplicate persons, and >more of these .... I can understand these problems, however I'd also like to raise a vote for distributed assignment, preferably by assigned number ranges (with attendant guards on the RIPE DB to automatically check the ranges ?) rather than an ever expanding list of authority prefixes/suffixes. However my reasons are somewhat selfish, as I think it will difficult to fit the process of obtaining a RIPE handle from the NCC (with a possibly quite long delay depending on the network and how well the relevant mail systems are working) into the exisitng automation system I use for the UK registry ! Kevin Hoadley, JIPS NOSC.
[ lir-wg Archives ]