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]/
[db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
leo vegoda
leo at ripe.net
Sat May 8 12:58:57 CEST 2004
Hi Jeroen, On May 6, 2004, at 5:12 pm, Jeroen Massar wrote: [...] > But one thing I have to note, according to RIPE you have to document > every prefix you are using, either you are not using the addresses > allocated to you or you did not fill in/update the database correctly > ;) This is an important point. In the Address Policy WG session we had a clarification on registration in the Whois database. It was from Wilfried if I remember correctly. The point was that while all /48 assignments must be registered, they don't all need to be registered in Whois. I think the expectation is that the vast majority of address space users will have their address space registered in the LIR's private, internal database and not the public, Whois database. The drafters of the policy text had only intended to require registration in Whois when a single organisation received more than a /48. I am sure this topic will receive more discussion on the addres-policy-wg at ripe.net list in the forthcoming months. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] Abuse-C/IRT
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]