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/anti-abuse-wg@ripe.net/
[anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Piotr Strzyzewski
Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
Fri Nov 12 14:39:10 CET 2010
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:53:47PM +0000, David Freedman wrote: > Can anybody explain why they feel this should not be done for allocation > objects (i.e PA) as well? I think this is completely crazy that we dont Because those kind of thata are already in the database. Allocations goes directly to LIRs, PA assignments are always under PA allocations. > have this already and would love to know what kind of misconceived ideas > about privacy may have gone into excluding this data in the first place. Piotr -- gucio -> Piotr Strzyżewski E-mail: Piotr.Strzyzewski at polsl.pl
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-10 New Policy Proposal (Adding reference to sponsoring LIR in inetnum, inet6num and aut-num objects)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]