[address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Florian Weimer
fw at deneb.enyo.de
Wed Jan 16 20:01:45 CET 2008
* Leo Vegoda: > On 16 Jan 2008, at 18:56, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * michael dillon: >> >>> - No PI assignments via LIRs. LIRs only manage PA IPv6. >>> - special membership in RIPE with an annual fee for PI holders >> >> How do you handle lack of payment? Reuse the prefix? That seems >> like a >> bad idea to me. > > If this is a bad idea... > >> I would also see a mandate to keep current address information, >> including legal details (register of companies number etc.) in the >> WHOIS database. RIPE NCC will investigate cases if proof is >> presented that something is wrong in the database (bouncing email, >> non-working phone number, bouncing snail mail, lack of matching entry >> in the register of companies). > > ... then what is the enforcement mechanism here? The same as above. This would be an additional process, on top of the yearly fee, not a replacement. > You've just defined a system where the RIPE NCC will guarantee the > uniqueness of address space for a one-time fee *and* allow registrants > to remain anonymous after the first 12 months. I can see a definite > market for something like this. We already face the problem that LIRs are somewhat pseudonymous. There's no easy way to determine which LIR controls which address blocks.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-01 New Policy Proposal (Assigning IPv6 PI to Every Inetnum Holder)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]