new swamp ?
James Aldridge jhma+ripe at mcvax.org
Tue Jun 4 17:15:39 CEST 2002
Andre Stiphout wrote: > But in the case the pullups go, signifying the end of a network, and > there is no clear RIPE policy behind this, I suspect not many providers > will care about getting these customers renumbered if these customers > feel they retain sufficient global connectivity. The net result is an > increase of the size of the routing table. > > Is this detailed in the LIR contract or something and what is the value > of that contract if the LIR disappears, but the customers find > connectivity elsewhere? I think that ripe-185 is pretty clear on registry colsures: | If the registry is closing as a Local IR, but will continue to provide | Internet connectivity to its customers as an ISP, the customers can continue | to use the address space already assigned to them. Assignments made by a | registry that is closed remain valid for as long as the original criteria | under which they were assigned remains valid. | | If the registry will no longer provide Internet connectivity to customers with | assigned address space, the assigned address space should be retrieved from | the users as they renumber. It is the Local IR's responsibility to help its | customers with renumbering. and | In general a period of 3 months should be allowed for the end user to complete | the transition to the new addresses. RFC 2008 "Implications of Various Address | Allocation Policies for Internet Routing" [Rekhter96a] recommends a grace | period of at least 30 days, and no longer than six months. For exceptional | cases, where the end user requests to keep both assignments for more than 6 | months, approval should be obtained for the proposed time frame from the RIPE | NCC. James (Co-chair RIPE LIR-WG)
[ lir-wg Archives ]