[anti-abuse-wg] Policy proposal: closing allocation/assignment window, was Policy disallowing spam from RIPE blocks

Hi,

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 01:24:45PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Gert Doering:
> 
> > This is the whole point.  There might be a business relation with a local
> > LIR already, and that's way easier for "smallish companies" than to do 
> > international contracts with Amstedam.
> 
> Some transit providers require LIR status in their contracts
> (presumably, they don't want to deal with abuse complaints, RIPE
> policy changes, and so on, so this is understandable).  Relying on an
> existing LIR is not always an option, even for small companies.

Not that I have ever seen such a contract - but certainly there's good
reason why a large transit ISP might not want to be bothered with 
end customer assignment rules when their business focus is on "move 
packets".

Tacking this to "LIR status" is a somewhat funny thing to do, though, as
that has nothing to do whatsoever with the presumed purpose - a non-LIR
can have PI space acquired through another LIR, and thus not bother the
transit provider with all these "LIR things" but still not be LIR itself.

(But this is straying from the point - Shane was talking about the current
ways to get *PI* space, which, in the typical cases, is not something LIRs
do for themselves)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
did you enable IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/anti-abuse-wg/attachments/20110310/6cda3134/attachment.sig>