Unfortunately this issue spans both policy and membership, as it's the limitations on the IPv4 space that is the trigger for the multiple LIR discussion. The issues can't be accurately discussed as distinct parts, they are co-dependant. -Tim. On 11/02/16 17:15, h.lu@anytimechinese.com wrote:
Hi
I think one thing need to be clarified here, if I am not mistaken, Gert and Sander should confirm this as well, how many LIR can a single entity open is an member issue, how many IP each LIR get, should LIR return address, should v4 allocation request to have v6 in place first etc, is an policy issue need to be discussed in policy mailing list.
在 2016年2月11日，下午5:09，Tim Armstrong <tim@treestle.com <mailto:tim@treestle.com>> 写道：
That's not viable yet, have you seen how fragmented th v6 table is, even Tier 1 ISPs have gaps.
I would argue that we just reduce the allocation for additional LIRs. That is if a single legal entity (or it's subsidiaries) register a new LIR, then the new LIR registered can only receive a /24 not a /22.
This way no one would act in bad faith trying to skirt the rules, and young ISPs still have the ability to grow without feeling significantly choked.
-Tim
On 11/02/16 17:02, Janis Jaunosans wrote:
just get ipv6.
On 11/02/16 17:58, Matthias Šubik wrote:
Additionally …
On 11.02.2016, at 16:26, Simon Lockhart <s.lockhart@cablecomnetworking.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu Feb 11, 2016 at 04:22:14PM +0100, Sebastian Wiesinger wrote:
* Nigel Titley <exec-board@ripe.net> [2016-02-11 12:02]: > 2. If this activity is a problem that must be prevented, what > action > should the RIPE NCC take to attempt its prevention? Do not allow additional LIR accounts for a member. I would concur.
One legal entity, one LIR. This should be easy for RIPE to implement, given that they require evidence of company registration or equivalent when establishing an LIR. Even if it is possible to open more legal entities in the RIPE region, when requiring an exclusive contact person it makes it not any harder for really new members, but harder for self cloning of members.
It might even be needed, to require the new contact person to complete the RIPE course, to slow down abusive behavior. The use of a simple nominee is therefor more difficult than without the course requirement.
just my two cents Matthias
-- <http://liquidns.com> Tim Armstrong Technical Director Treestle B.V. Goudsesingel 78, 3011 KD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Chamber of Commerce: 59116803 Office: +31 (0) 10 3400 720 Mobile: +31 (0) 61 7544 472 Treestle runs one of the world's fastest global managed DNS platforms at www.liquidns.com <http://www.liquidns.com/> and offers LiquiD AutoScaler, a website-user centric autoscaling solution at www.liquidautoscaler.com <http://www.liquidautoscaler.com/>. Independent software vendor for: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> Member of: <https://apps.db.ripe.net/search/lookup.html?source=ripe&key=ORG-TB77-RIPE&type=organisation> <https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/pp/B013UXHSOO/?ref=_ptnr_pe_> <https://cloudstore.interoute.com/LiquiDAutoScalerBasic><https://liquidautoscaler.com/documentation/other/quickstart>
