At 03:22 PM 7/21/95 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
Antonio_Blasco Bonito <bonito@nis.garr.it> writes:
I think it *is* relevant: we are talking about CIDR aggregatable addresses. Some US providers do not want to provide addresses to customers in Europe from their own address space to save the possibility of continental aggregation. This is a point which needs to be clarified at least to correctly define the role of Regional registries.
I only know of one such case and this provider has since changed their mind (regid eu.sprint).
I think this document should have worldwide applicability and be published as an RFC.
Do not agree. For European Last-Resort registries a RIPE document is sufficient.
That's not sufficient, I guess. We could start with a RIPE document but I'm convinced the issue is *not* restricted to Europe.
We start with a RIPE document. The problem with an RFCs is that there are many highly contentious issues associated with a successor to RFC1466. This document is not going to be agreed quickly. However we need a revision of ripe-104. So far we have been waiting. ripe-104 is now sufficiently outdated to go ahead with a revision anyway. I just hope that we can agree on one in Europe.
I would prefer it to go the other way round but there seems to be little choice.
RIPE-181 became an RFC for the same reason. Am I right?
It is an informational RFC about a technology, not about address space policies.
Daniel
--------------------------------------------------------- Ivo Gorkic Quantum d.o.o. Stegne 21d tel: +386 61 159 72 56 61000 Ljubljana fax: +386 61 159 71 92 Slovenija e-mail: ivo.gorkic@quantum.si ---------------------------------------------------------