On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:28:39PM -0400, Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> That's why it would be best to distribute the data to the prefix holders in
> the form of some sort of signed certificates. The registar need only maintain
> a fixed-size bitmap of allocated/available prefixes.
Quite.
Actually if
Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> |and the principle that the charges of
|> |registration under any given registration model should reflect the costs
|> |associated with the operation of the service,
|
|> One of the big benefits of the permanently allocated addresses being
|> discussed
> |and the principle that the charges of
> |registration under any given registration model should reflect the costs
> |associated with the operation of the service,
> One of the big benefits of the permanently allocated addresses being
> discussed is that the costs of maintaining their database
Dan Lanciani wrote:
|It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
|vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
|choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
|applicable to this service reflect the different cost
Thus spake "Brian Haberman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Would anyone be able to ask whether a specific prefix was
> allocated or not?
This makes sense, whether or not the particular registrant is named.
> Would a holder be able to 'recover' their prefix from the
>
"Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Playing Devil's Advocate, perpetual assignments will also inevitably lead to
|a situation where, after many years (think decades), the majority of
|assignments will be stale because the registrant no longer exists but didn't
|return the assignment. Whi
Thus spake "Dan Lanciani" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> |It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
> |vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
> |choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
> |applicable to this s
Geoff Huston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|At 06:21 AM 1/07/2004, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|>|It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
|>|vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
|>|choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that
At 06:21 AM 1/07/2004, Dan Lanciani wrote:
|It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
|vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
|choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
|applicable to this service refl
|It may be that this issue of assignments performed in perpetuity
|vs fixed period renewable assignments should be a matter of
|choice by the client as the time of assignment, and that charge
|applicable to this service reflect the different cost structure
|o
3) Separate from 2), are there any areas where the RIRs think some
changes might be useful to consider, based on their experiences and
perspectives? E.g., are there particular operational concerns? Is
the document overly prescriptive in ways that don't necessarily
seem helpful? Are
11 matches
Mail list logo
