[address-policy-wg] 2007-01 Last Call for Comments (Direct Internet Resource Assignments to End Users from the RIPE NCC)

Frederic,

On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 11:58:54AM +0200, Frederic wrote:
> Le mardi 08 avril 2008 à 11:38 +0200, Shane Kerr a écrit :
> > Max,
> > 
> > I'm going to repeat stuff you already know. Sorry!
> > 
> > Regarding the source of the traffic, right now in IPv4 we have the
> > situation where we have:
> > 
> > IANA -> RIPE NCC -> LIR -> PI recipient
> > 
> > Once the link between the RIPE NCC and the LIR, or between the LIR
> > and PI recipient is broken, the space is completely untraceable.
> 
> 
> why is broken ? because Ripe do not implement relation between PI holder
> thru Database information.
> 
> Dead PI is like Dead Domain name.
> 
> a simple procedure thru mail communication can force to have news
> about "may be Dead" block and take the good decision.
> 
> To force "Contractual Link with Ripe" for PI bloc is not the good
> way.  To force Fees is not good too.

To be clear, I don't care about a signed contract, and I really don't
care about fees.  What you are talking about is an agreement between
two parties, the RIPE NCC and the address holder. Something like 
this(*):

  PI holders must maintain an up to date e-mail address with the RIPE
  NCC. If they do not, the PI space will be returned to the unused
  pool.

I support this, also. :)

--
Shane

(*) When I write it, not when lawyers write it.