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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mikael Abrahamsson
swmike at swm.pp.se
Tue Aug 11 14:23:14 CEST 2015
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015, David Huberman wrote: > Existing ASN policy suffices if we simply strike one sentence about > multi-homing (and then ask the NCC to generally automate the > implementation). Existing ASN policy references the criteria in RFC1930 > as justification for an ASN, and an audit can rely on the text to clear > out any stupidity. > > Yes? Hm, so you want to move to a model that does post-auditing in case of suspected misbehavior (which would involve revokation in case of abuse has been detected), instead of doing pre-auditing of each request? So this sounds like the model employed for DNS domains. This requires committes of impartial people judging the facts and blah blah blah. It also involves text how this process works. So while I am not opposed to this suggestion, I fear that's it's more complicated to implement than what might be obvious at first glance. -- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike at swm.pp.se
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Fwd: Suggestions on a new asn assignment policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]