[members-discuss] [ncc-announce] [news] RIPE NCC Members and Multiple LIR Accounts - Please Discuss

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256



On 12/02/2016 23:13, Paul Civati wrote:
> 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.

...and don't get a /22 
(could be a "chance" monopoly card).


> 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.

unfair, this should be limited to empty /22s.


> 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.

This makes sense to me. A legitimate transfer should be backed by a quite
consistent history of existance in the Whois documentation, and routing
history, and also probably quite reasoneably continuity *after* the
transfer.

Maybe an algorithm could detect such things and validate them, or signal
suspect cases to be examined by a human.


> 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?

I think not related, and not realistic. This whould induce possibly really
annoying issues for some companies (maybe by delaying their setup considerably
if they are doing things right), while providing ridiculous proof : Let us 
announce our /48 from the border routeur, some ipv6 addresses to answer,
provide a fake plan for the rest and so what ? 

Best regards,
Sylvain

- -- 
http://www.opdop.fr  -  mutualiser et interconnecter en coopérative
Opdop - Société Coopérative d'Interêt Collectif sous forme de SARL
sur IRC réseau geeknode #opdop - tél: 0950 31 54 74, 06 86 38 38 68
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlbF6NsACgkQJBGsD8mtnREqhQD+OO0vDN8+YUSqsSCq9idJv5A7
NTYrsfl4zHeHQbUCa4cA/iU6onD9erQ0wsxieSZGCzLoNN5Y/q5MtkYrxZNKuZEB
=mJp8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----