Hi, just some more food for thought: On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 06:52:29PM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Actually I think that this wouldn't be easy today (given that PI stands for "independent"), but with the new contract framework, we *do* have the instruments to tag PI/AS objects to "who is the currently-responsible LIR for this"?
Why would we care which LIR sent in a request for a PI assignment and why would we want to require "independent" networks to maintain a contractual relationship with an LIR?
Because the RIR wants to know how to reach the PI holder. Either they have a direct relation - or if not, they need to go through a LIR. (At least that seems to be what the RIPE community and the NCC agrees to be the way forward). Whether or not this relationship should be made publically viewable is a completely different discussion, of course. [..]
Identifying LIRs strikes me as a mechanism to label LIRs as either "good" or "bad" and doing this is at best likely to besmirch innocent customers who are unrelated to any abuse. At worst it is likely to cause them problems operating their networks. "Guilty by association" is something we should try to avoid.
Actually it goes along with the responsibility thing of address distribution. If the LIR doesn't do a proper job in maintaining contact data for the end user, the blame falls back onto the LIR, and I think that this is actually not such a bad thing. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 110584 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