new swamp ?
Andre Stiphout andre.stiphout at wcom.com
Tue Jun 4 18:40:37 CEST 2002
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:15:39PM +0000, James Aldridge wrote: > 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) Thanks, that is clear, but I'm worried that the LIR will no longer be around to effect that change, as Kurtis also indicates could happen, but in a different way. I guess the onus then falls on the LIRs that start announcing fragments of the original PA space. Will RIPE NCC track this to ensure that renumbering does happen? What I would like to see is that all SPs demand these customers, which I assume to be smaller than a /20, to renumber as some of you already indicated they will. This can only work across-the-board if RIPE NCC ensures that it does happen by chasing the LIRs in question (yes/no?). >From Hank's email just now we can deduce that the latter part is not likely to happen. Any comments from RIPE NCC how they see this evolving? regards, andre
[ lir-wg Archives ]