Last Resort Registries
Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be Stephan.Biesbroeck at belnet.be
Tue Jul 25 15:22:42 CEST 1995
I am personally in favor of closing down the last resource registry (one reason is of course that it is starting to take up a serious amount of resources for us :-(). BUT documentation is in that case indeed hardly needed since some "callers" are rather agressive, and in that case it is usefull to point them to a general available document. Stephan Daniel Karrenberg wrote : > Last-Resort local IRs have been established to serve end-users who do > not have access to another local IR either because they do not connect > to the Internet yet or because Internet service providers were not yet > providing registry services. > Recently the introduction of route aggregation (CIDR) and the > proliferation of local IRs operated by service providers greatly reduce > the usefulness of Last-Restort local IRs. Even worse, the routing of > non-aggregatable address space negatively impacts the Internet routing > system. Such space either is or shortly will be less then useful for > the end-user because they have to renumber when connecting. Also there > is now private address space available for use of end-users who want > address space that is guaranteed not to be used by another end-user on > the Internet. > 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. > Consequently it has been proposed several times already to close down > the Last-Resort registries. I think it is now time to finally take > such a step with a timeframe of end Q3/95 or at the end of the year. > Are there any serious problems with this step? > Daniel -- Stephan Biesbroeck Tel: +32(0)2-2383470 stephan at belnet.be Fax: +32(0)2-2311531 Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET
[ lir-wg Archives ]