* Carlos Friaças via address-policy-wg:
So in order to make it clear for the co-chairs, i do oppose this
proposal, on the grounds that the quality of publicly available
registration data is likely to decrease if this proposal is approved.
Hi Carlos,
This concern has been addressed at length in the previous phases of the
policy development process, so for the full answer we will refer you
back to those discussions. We will however summarise our position
briefly below:
We do not believe the registration data will degrade as a result of this
proposal. It does in no way encourage or compel LIRs to remove any End
User registration data currently found in the database, nor does it stop
them from adding more End User registration data in the future. In other
words, any LIR that today chooses to publish detailed information about
their individual End User assignments is free to continue to do so after
this proposal is implemented.
Furthermore, there is no reason to expect that the acceptance of this
proposal will entice LIRs to replace detailed individual assignments
with aggregated assignments en masse. This has not happened with IPv6,
where there are currently over twelve times as many ASSIGNED inet6num
objects as there are AGGREGATED-BY-LIR objects. Many of those are rife
with optional End User details shared voluntarily by the issuing LIRs.
We see no reason to believe that LIRs will use AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for
IPv4 inetnum objects in a materially different way.
Finally, we would like to point out that the proposal explicitly
restricts the scope of AGGREGATED-BY-LIR, by stating that «the purpose
and the contact details must be consistent throughout the whole
assignment». That means that the End User registration data that can be
aggregated must be redundant in the first place.
Best regards,
Jeroen & Tore
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
