Last Resort Registries
Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Fri Jul 21 15:22:40 CEST 1995
> Antonio_Blasco Bonito <bonito at nis.garr.it> writes: > > I think it *is* relevant: we are talking about CIDR aggregatable addresses. > Some US providers do not want to provide addresses to customers in Europe > from their own address space to save the possibility of continental > aggregation. This is a point which needs to be clarified at least to > correctly define the role of Regional registries. I only know of one such case and this provider has since changed their mind (regid eu.sprint). > > > 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. > > That's not sufficient, I guess. We could start with a RIPE document but > I'm convinced the issue is *not* restricted to Europe. We start with a RIPE document. The problem with an RFCs is that there are many highly contentious issues associated with a successor to RFC1466. This document is not going to be agreed quickly. However we need a revision of ripe-104. So far we have been waiting. ripe-104 is now sufficiently outdated to go ahead with a revision anyway. I just hope that we can agree on one in Europe. I would prefer it to go the other way round but there seems to be little choice. > RIPE-181 became an RFC for the same reason. Am I right? It is an informational RFC about a technology, not about address space policies. Daniel
[ lir-wg Archives ]