Re: Last Resort Registries

At 03:22 PM 7/21/95 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
>
>  > Antonio_Blasco Bonito bonito@localhost writes:
>  > 
>  > I think it *is* relevant: we are talking about CIDR aggregatable addresses.
>  > Some US providers do not want to provide addresses to customers in Europe
>  > from their own address space to save the possibility of continental
>  > aggregation. This is a point which needs to be clarified at least to
>  > correctly define the role of Regional registries.
>
>I only know of one such case and this provider has since changed their
>mind (regid eu.sprint).
>
>  > >    > I think this document
>  > >    > should have worldwide applicability and be published as an RFC.
>  > >  
>  > >  Do not agree. For European Last-Resort registries a RIPE document is
>  > >  sufficient.
>  > 
>  > That's not sufficient, I guess. We could start with a RIPE document but
>  > I'm convinced the issue is *not* restricted to Europe.
>
>We start with a RIPE document. The problem with an RFCs is that there are 
>many highly contentious issues associated with a successor to RFC1466.
>This document is not going to be agreed quickly. However we need a 
>revision of ripe-104. So far we have been waiting. ripe-104 is now
>sufficiently outdated to go ahead with a revision anyway. I just hope
>that we can agree on one in Europe.
>
>I would prefer it to go the other way round but there seems to 
>be little choice.
>
>  > RIPE-181 became an RFC for the same reason. Am I right?
>
>It is an informational RFC about a technology, not about address space 
>policies.
>
>Daniel
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------
     Ivo Gorkic
     Quantum d.o.o.       
     Stegne 21d           tel: +386 61 159 72 56
     61000 Ljubljana      fax: +386 61 159 71 92
     Slovenija            e-mail: ivo.gorkic@localhost
---------------------------------------------------------