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] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Gert Doering
gert at space.net
Tue Apr 9 16:50:11 CEST 2024
Hi, On Tue, Apr 09, 2024 at 04:31:06AM +0200, denis walker wrote: > Tore you are absolutely right, the cat is out of the bag...but which > cat? You seem fine about how the RIPE NCC has been mis-interpreting > policy for 10 years and how they have no power to enforce it other > than the nuclear option, which we all know they will not use. The > revelations from this discussion have completely changed the landscape > for RIPE policy. It has been totally undermined. There is no "change of landscape" or "undermining of policy" here - to anyone following address policy it was always clear that there is some leeway in registering end user assignments (INFRA-AW), and that the NCC cannot enforce correctness of all data. They can and do audits, and back when there was still new space to be had, such an audit could have very unpleasant consequences - namely, reducing the AW to 0, and refusing allocation of new blocks, until documentation was fixed. Since there is no more v4 space at the NCC, all these levers are gone (through no fault of policy or the NCC). Also it was discussed a number of times here on the list and in the meetings what LIRs should put into the admin-c: and tech-c:, given that natural persons being involved might not agree to be listed in a public database with their personal information. So "register the NOC here", and for single user end customers "register the LIR contacts" has been established practice for a long time. So while I totally agree that we all (as "the LIRs in the RIPE region") might not have been following policy to *the letter*, overall most of us followed it to the *spirit* - "put someone in there that will take responsibility and can take action if needed" (which the letter "put someone in who is on-site" will not achieve). Should we work on improving the documents? By all means, yes. Has this anything to do with 2023-04, or the last call for it? Hardly. Gert Doering -- speaking as LIR contact, and with some policy experience -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Ingo Lalla, Karin Schuler Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240409/cc5f6fee/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Last Call - 2023-04 (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]