Re: Last Resort Registries

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@localhost                               Fax: +32(0)2-2311531
Service Support Team of the Belgian National Research Network, BELNET