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] Control over associating objects for number blocks
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Control over associating objects for number blocks
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE 71 DB-WG agenda V1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrea Cima
andrea at ripe.net
Wed Oct 28 15:50:53 CET 2015
Dear all, Please let me try to clarify a few points related to this thread. There is currently a reclaim functionality in place for more specific INETNUM, DOMAIN and ROUTE objects, for address space that has been issued by the RIPE NCC. Here, there is a clear hierarchy in place: the LIR has an IP block with the status "allocated pa" and is the holder of the resources. The End User receives an IP block with the status "assigned pa” which must be returned when the services provided by the LIR are terminated (ripe-649). This proposal would therefore only affect legacy resources. However, legacy IP addresses do not follow the same hierarchy as IP address space that was issued by the RIPE NCC. There is no policy mandating that address space be returned when services are terminated. Furthermore, it is not possible to know what agreements have been made over the years between the maintainers of parent and child objects. We would like to highlight that such an implementation would mean interfering between legacy resource holders, by taking the following position: the organisation maintaining the parent object is the rightful holder of the IP block. This would ignore any potential agreements made over the years between the two parties. It was suggested that the RIPE NCC could intervene and determine who the legitimate holder is where disputes arise. However, the RIPE NCC has neither the mandate nor the resources to do this, as outlined in our impact analysis for the policy proposal 2012-07, “RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Holders": "When the situation presents itself where there are multiple layers of legacy resources distribution, it is the responsibility of the parties involved to find an agreement on which party is the legitimate holder of the legacy resource". I hope this clarifies. Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] Control over associating objects for number blocks
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] RIPE 71 DB-WG agenda V1
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]