[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friacas
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Wed Aug 29 12:30:24 CEST 2012
Fully agree! Having a policy in place for services, will improve access to legacy holders, but won't force *all* legacy holders to use those services... Regards, Carlos On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:08:27AM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote: >> This actually raises an interesting issue. Are there any circumstances >> in which RIPE policy would apply to legacy space? Could, for example, >> the AP-WG unilaterally propose a policy that annexed legacy space? > > I don't think so. > > APWG policy governs under which rules the RIPE NCC gives out (and possible > takes back from) internet numbers from the RIPE NCC "pool" to "consumers" > - and this sort of obviously only applies to numbers that the RIPE NCC has > been given authority over, via the IETF->IANA->RIPE NCC chain of delegation. > > >> I've heard this suggested several times. And of course, if RIPE policy >> doesn't apply to legacy space, why are the legacy holders raising a >> proposal at all? > > Now, the RIPE NCC provides services to legacy address space holders that > happen to be in the RIPE service region: > > - RIPE database and routing registry > "who 'owns' it and who is authorized to announce it?" > - reverse DNS delegation > - potentially: RPKI certificates > > due to the way RPSL-authentication and DNS tree'ing work, this is not > easy to do in a non-hierarchical structure, so "having this done by > the RIPE NCC" makes sense from a technical point of view. > > OTOH, I can see that the NCC wants to see some money in exchange for > the expenses running all this (and that seems to make sense as well :-) ). > > > Now, the policy proposal raised here is not an *address space* policy > proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal - which governs the way > the NCC runs their, uh, services. And I think this is a reasonable > approach - find something that the ERX holder community and the RIPE > NCC is happy with, walk it through an open consensus process, and then > nobody can argue that the RIPE NCC is going out and bullying/blackmailing > ERX holders over their addresses... > > (As far as I understand the system, the ERX space would still not be > part of the "normal" APWG policy regime - like "RIPE *address* policies > have no influence on how the addresses are distributed by the holder's > organizationo to 3rd parties" and "no audits", etc.) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? > > SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann > D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) > Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 >
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]