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] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
michael.dillon at bt.com
michael.dillon at bt.com
Wed Jan 16 15:24:26 CET 2008
> And how many get cancelled each year because they are not > being paid for, and if they do it's much easier to remove a > domain name from the internet. Unless there would be an > active system with signatures it's very hard to make sure > cancelled PI/PA blocks will disappear from the DFZ. First of all, if a PI block is not paid for it will disappear from RIPE's DB. I would expect many ISPs to have an internal process for IPv6 Peering customers to regularly check the DB. Also, there are a number of groups which regularly analyze BGP announcements looking for things like bogons and ghost-routes. I would expect one or more of those groups to include unregistered PI blocks in their reporting. A greater number of ISPs will probably track these reports to make sure that they are following best practices. --Michael Dillon
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]