[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal: #Zeta Adding Regional Boundaries to policy documents

I got an interesting question for clearification, which I had not 
thought about.

My intention when  posting this proposal is that you cannot use RIPE 
policies to get internet resouces from other RIRs.

It should however not change the current policy that a global provider 
can use thesse resources globally.

Ie - I can announce a RIPE AS number all over the world - and use IP 
addresses in all of my network - and for all of my customers.
I may still choose to have a relationship with multiple RIRs - but that 
is not mandtory.

maybe the wordning needs clearification.

-hph

Hans Petter Holen wrote:

> Dear Address Policy WG,
> This policy proposal is nothing more than an editorial change - but we 
> still feel it is fair to run it trough the PDP.
> As I do not expect much discussion I propose the discussion phase to 
> end by May 1st.
>
> While I am voicing this proposal the suggestion actualy comes from our 
> excellent RIPE NCC staff. Thanks leo for pointing this out.
>
> Best Regards
> Hans Petter Holen
> Address Policy
>
> 1.      Number Zeta
>
> 2.      Policy Proposal Name: Adding Regional Boundaries to policy 
> documents
>
> 3.      Author
>
>        a.      name: Hans Petter Holen
>
>        b.      e-mail: hpholen at tiscali.no
>
>        c.      telephone: +47 45066054
>
>        d.      organisation: Visma IT AS
>
> 4.      Proposal Version:
>
>
>
> 5.      Submission Date: 16/4-2005
>
>
>
> 6.      Suggested WG for discussion and publication
>
>        Address policy type
>
>
>
> 7.      Proposal type:
>
>        a.      modify
>
>
>
> 8.      Policy term:
>
>        a.      permanent
>
>
>
> 9.      Summary of proposal
>
>
>
>        Our AS assignment policy has the following statement in it:
>
>
>
>        "The RIPE NCC assigns AS Numbers for Autonomous Systems
>        located in the RIPE NCC service region"
>
>
>
>        Neither the IPv4 nor the IPv6 policy documents have such a
>        clear statement in them. It might be a good idea to add a
>        similar statement to those documents when they are updated.
>
>
>
> 10.     Policy text
>
>        a.      Current (if modify):
>
>        b.      New:
>
>
>
> 11.     Rationale:
>
>      a.  Arguments supporting the proposal
>
>        Clearification of the scope of the documents
>
>
>            b.  Arguments opposing the proposal
>
> n/a
>