[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012101501001508] [ncc-services-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-08 New Policy Proposal (Publication of [...]

Dear Sergey,

I agree with Sergey. Every time when we have any troubles with PI-networks -
we are receiving answer that end-user fully responsible for this IPs and LIR
can't do anything with this resources. So doesn't make sense to show who is
sponsoring LIR.

--
Kind regards,
Alexey Ivanov
LeaderTelecom B.V. Team

15.10.2012 21:52 - Sergey Myasoedov написал(а):
 
I also disagree with the statement 'detect and react'. Sponsoring LIR is not
responsible
for the PI network and often does not provide any kind of IP connectivity.

There is an existence of valid PI contacts listed as one of criteria for PI
assignment.
And this is enough.

Monday, October 15, 2012, 5:27:26 PM, you wrote:

SL> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 04:23:56PM +0200, Richard Hartmann wrote:
>>This could help curb, or at least detect and react to, abuse once IPv4
>>PI is hopefully allowed once again.
SL> That is exactly why I strongly oppose this proposal. Publishing the
SL> sponsoring LIR for a PI assignment creates an appearance of
SL> responsibility on the part of the sposoring LIR, for the actions of the
SL> PI assignee, *that does not exist*.

--
Sergey

 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121016/b5f2c1ed/attachment.html>