new swamp ?

Andre Stiphout wrote:
> But in the case the pullups go, signifying the end of a network, and
> there is no clear RIPE policy behind this, I suspect not many providers
> will care about getting these customers renumbered if these customers
> feel they retain sufficient global connectivity. The net result is an
> increase of the size of the routing table.
> 
> Is this detailed in the LIR contract or something and what is the value
> of that contract if the LIR disappears, but the customers find
> connectivity elsewhere?

I think that ripe-185 is pretty clear on registry colsures:

| If the registry is closing as a Local IR, but will continue to provide
| Internet connectivity to its customers as an ISP, the customers can continue
| to use the address space already assigned to them. Assignments made by a
| registry that is closed remain valid for as long as the original criteria
| under which they were assigned remains valid. 
| 
| If the registry will no longer provide Internet connectivity to customers with
| assigned address space, the assigned address space should be retrieved from
| the users as they renumber. It is the Local IR's responsibility to help its
| customers with renumbering. 

and

| In general a period of 3 months should be allowed for the end user to complete
| the transition to the new addresses. RFC 2008 "Implications of Various Address
| Allocation Policies for Internet Routing" [Rekhter96a] recommends a grace
| period of at least 30 days, and no longer than six months. For exceptional
| cases, where the end user requests to keep both assignments for more than 6
| months, approval should be obtained for the proposed time frame from the RIPE
| NCC. 

James
(Co-chair RIPE LIR-WG)