Last Resort Registries
Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Thu Jul 20 16:56:14 CEST 1995
> bonito at nis.garr.it (Antonio_Blasco Bonito) writes: > > Unfortunately there are still cases of ISPs not providing registry > services for their customers. For example US providers selling > connectivity in Europe do not provide IP addresses. As far as I know > they do not want to be part of the European Regional IR. I do not know of *any* significant cases of this. The issue which regional IR a provider gets allocations from is not relevant in this discussion. > > Additionally the Last-Resort registries form an anomaly in the RIPE NCC > > charging system, because they do not contribute to NCC funding while > > using NCC resources. > > This can eventually be solved in some way... I agree, if we decide to keep them around we will have to charge them like any other registry. Note however, that this is not the main argument for doing away with them. > I think it could be done but there is a strong need for a document > explaining the new address assignment policy. Fully agree! > I think this document > should have worldwide applicability and be published as an RFC. Do not agree. For European Last-Resort registries a RIPE document is sufficient. > Local IRs need such a reference when they have to answer to strange > address assignment requests eventually coming from network managers > or small providers located in dispersed sites around the world. Yep. Daniel
[ lir-wg Archives ]