This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andy Davidson
andy at nosignal.org
Thu Sep 21 03:00:20 CEST 2006
Max Tulyev wrote: >This story is about PA/LIR, where (again, in the theory) all is quite >simply. No money -> closing contarct (as in terms of it) -> getting back >IPs. > > You're opening up a huge can of worms here. 'Getting back IPs' means contacting peers and upstreams and telling these parties to stop accepting the announcement from the non-paying company. If the company is still paying bills to their upstreams, do you think upstreams will take kindly to this action ? The RIPE NCC deleting the inetnum object doesn't mean the addresses stop routing ... RIPE NCC possibly have no contract with the companies that would need to stop accepting the prefixes from the debting party. -a
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]