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

Fully agree!

Having a policy in place for services, will improve access to legacy 
holders, but won't force *all* legacy holders to use those services...

Regards,
Carlos


On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Gert Doering wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 11:08:27AM +0100, Nigel Titley wrote:
>> This actually raises an interesting issue. Are there any circumstances
>> in which RIPE policy would apply to legacy space? Could, for example,
>> the AP-WG unilaterally propose a policy that annexed legacy space?
>
> I don't think so.
>
> APWG policy governs under which rules the RIPE NCC gives out (and possible
> takes back from) internet numbers from the RIPE NCC "pool" to "consumers"
> - and this sort of obviously only applies to numbers that the RIPE NCC has
> been given authority over, via the IETF->IANA->RIPE NCC chain of delegation.
>
>
>> I've heard this suggested several times. And of course, if RIPE policy
>> doesn't apply to legacy space, why are the legacy holders raising a
>> proposal at all?
>
> Now, the RIPE NCC provides services to legacy address space holders that
> happen to be in the RIPE service region:
>
> - RIPE database and routing registry
>     "who 'owns' it and who is authorized to announce it?"
> - reverse DNS delegation
> - potentially: RPKI certificates
>
> due to the way RPSL-authentication and DNS tree'ing work, this is not
> easy to do in a non-hierarchical structure, so "having this done by
> the RIPE NCC" makes sense from a technical point of view.
>
> OTOH, I can see that the NCC wants to see some money in exchange for
> the expenses running all this (and that seems to make sense as well :-) ).
>
>
> Now, the policy proposal raised here is not an *address space* policy
> proposal, but an *ncc service* policy proposal - which governs the way
> the NCC runs their, uh, services.  And I think this is a reasonable
> approach - find something that the ERX holder community and the RIPE
> NCC is happy with, walk it through an open consensus process, and then
> nobody can argue that the RIPE NCC is going out and bullying/blackmailing
> ERX holders over their addresses...
>
> (As far as I understand the system, the ERX space would still not be
> part of the "normal" APWG policy regime - like "RIPE *address* policies
> have no influence on how the addresses are distributed by the holder's
> organizationo to 3rd parties" and "no audits", etc.)
>
> Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
> -- 
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>