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]/
[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Paul Civati
paul at racksense.com
Fri Feb 12 23:13:37 CET 2016
On 12 Feb 2016, at 21:07, Matthias Šubik wrote: > When you really want to get v6 going, you should make v6 a requirement to use the RIPE-DB :) > Then at least the network admins get dual stacked, and will notice if they are v6-offline (as described recently in the “decreasing v6-RIPEness report”. > > I would even go so far, to ask the registries to require v6 DNS-Servers, and ask the regulation in telecommunication (or the EU) to require v6-MX and web servers (when listed in public). > > Then the need for v4 address space is dampened down. So going back to the original question really, which was multiple LIR accounts.. This has diverged into how/why people are taking them and that is that people want to abuse the rules around limited remaining IPv4 resources set aside for new entrants. So we can disincentivise through cost, admin and technical approaches. 1. Time delay before a new LIR can be merged with another, 12 months? This seems a reasonable option, why would anyone create a brand new LIR and then want to merge it <12 months. 2. Make additional fees for multiple LIRs under one organisation, if you want it fine, but pay for the additional admin burden. 3. Additional fees for six months once an LIR is merged. May seem drastic but if people are abusing current rules then you have to combat them. 4. If an LIR is opened it has AS and IP4/6, there should be some kind of rule about this IP space having been visible through that AS number before a merger is permitted. I am thinking about creating technical admin burden for people creating many LIRs, so that they will have to go through the technical hassle of setting up configurations before doing a merger, ie. even if you are willing to pay extra fees to open 10x LIR to get space then also be prepared to set up 10x BGP configs for it. Not completely related to the original point, but if you want to reduce motivation for people to still rely on IPv4 straight off then: 5. New LIR opens and is issued with IPv6 space immediately, then and only once that IPv6 space is up and visible in routing tables can you apply for your IPv4 space for that LIR. If you are not ready to run IPv6 at LIR opening, will you ever be? Just throwing out some ideas, may not be perfect of course.. Regards, Paul. -- Paul Civati <paul(at)racksense.com> 0870 321 2855 Rack Sense Ltd - Managed Service Provider - www.racksense.com
- Previous message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
- Next message (by thread): [members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]