[ncc-services-wg] Policy proposal for services to legacy Internet resource holders

At 12:16 24/08/2012 +0100, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>On 24 Aug 2012, at 08:25, Hank Nussbacher <hank at efes.iucc.ac.il> wrote:
> > I believe if you did an analysis of the 3000 allocations, you would 
> find that many (my estimate - over 1700) are academic allocations and 
> those NRENs are all paying members of RIPE NCC.  And they have probably 
> been paying members far longer than 99.9% of the RIPE membership (Janet, 
> Renater, GARR, Surfnet, SWITCH, IUCC, etc.).
>
>Hank,
>
>Are these address blocks registered to the academic institutions or to the 
>nrens?  If they are registered as being assigned directly to the 
>institutions, I'm not sure why it's relevant that the nrens are paying 
>members of the ripe ncc when comparing this situation to the arin LRSA.

Based on mnt-by, the # of ERX address blocks managed by the top 11 NRENs in 
Europe:

AS786 278 JOM12-RIPE operations at ja.net
AS2200 257 GR1378-RIPE RenSVP at Renater.fr
AS680 216 DUMY-RIPE no-email   [DFN]
AS137 166 EV182-RIPE Enzo.Valente at garr.it
AS1103 119 SNS1-RIPE netmaster at surfnet.nl
AS559 115 WH1101 huber at switch.ch
AS696 45 WH1101 huber at switch.ch
AS766 32 ER494-RIPE esther.robles at rediris.es
AS1101 32 WB311-RIPE Wim.Biemolt at surfnet.nl
AS1853 23 AA7477-RIPE admin at aco.net
AS378 20 HN293-RIPE hank at efes.iucc.ac.il

-Hank


>If they are registered to the nrens rather than the academic institutions 
>then I can see that there would be a valid comparison here, which could be 
>relevant if the ripe community were to agree that an arin style LRSA would 
>be an appropriate means of resolving this situation.
>
>Nick