[ncc-services-wg] comments on proposal 2012-07

Hi Nick,

Op 2 nov. 2013, om 20:49 heeft Nick Hilliard <nick at netability.ie> het volgende geschreven:
> I'm proposing that the RIPE NCC lets LRHs update and maintain the registry
> info for their inetnums, but for those organisations who by default or by
> choice fall into category 2.6, that (after due effort from the RIPE NCC to
> engage with them) if they continue to decline to pay for registry services
> that they lose some services, e.g. reverse dns and/or route: objects for
> those inetnums.

I personally find this a bit petty. You seem to have a very different idea about the RIPE database than I have. The RIPE database is a service to the *community*, not only the NCC members. And the database != the registry. There are lots of things in that database: poems, route objects for IP ranges and ASNs not allocated or assigned by the NCC are fully supported (see the FAQ at http://www.ripe.net/data-tools/db/faq/faq-db, Q: How to create a route object when the matching IP range is not allocated or assigned from the RIPE NCC?) etc. Someone with IP space from Afrinic and an ASN from LACNIC is allowed to create a route object in the RIPE database. But now suddenly an exception must be made for legacy resources?

Besides, I think that what you suggest will really create a lot of work for the database team of the NCC. I can't even imagine the mess of business logic necessary to implement what you suggest. Being a paying NCC member myself I would be very strongly against the NCC putting any effort/money into such complications.

Sander