Re: Last Resort Registries
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 15:22:42 +0200 (MET DST)
I am personally in favor of closing down the last resource registry
(one reason is of course that it is starting to take up a serious
amount of resources for us :-().
BUT documentation is in that case indeed hardly needed since some
"callers" are rather agressive, and in that case it is usefull to
point them to a general available document.
Daniel Karrenberg wrote :
> Last-Resort local IRs have been established to serve end-users who do
> not have access to another local IR either because they do not connect
> to the Internet yet or because Internet service providers were not yet
> providing registry services.
> Recently the introduction of route aggregation (CIDR) and the
> proliferation of local IRs operated by service providers greatly reduce
> the usefulness of Last-Restort local IRs. Even worse, the routing of
> non-aggregatable address space negatively impacts the Internet routing
> system. Such space either is or shortly will be less then useful for
> the end-user because they have to renumber when connecting. Also there
> is now private address space available for use of end-users who want
> address space that is guaranteed not to be used by another end-user on
> the Internet.
> Additionally the Last-Resort registries form an anomaly in the RIPE NCC
> charging system, because they do not contribute to NCC funding while
> using NCC resources.
> Consequently it has been proposed several times already to close down
> the Last-Resort registries. I think it is now time to finally take
> such a step with a timeframe of end Q3/95 or at the end of the year.
> Are there any serious problems with this step?
Stephan Biesbroeck Tel: +32(0)2-2383470
stephan@localhost Fax: +32(0)2-2311531
Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET