On Jun 30, "Ronald F. Guilmette" <r...@tristatelogic.com> wrote:
> And conversely, why did RIPE, and/or any of its LIRs, deem it appropriate > to grant one of RIPE's limited supply of AS numbers to a self-identified > *Belizian* company, particularly when this was the company's first, > last, and *only* AS number? Because, as you pointed out, they have a network presence in the RIPE region. > Wouldn't a LACNIC-issued AS number have > done just as well? If not, why not? I am not familiar with LACNIC policies. -- ciao, Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
