On 05/07/2017 10:11, Sander Steffann wrote: > Hi Radu, > >> You should be aware that ISPs do not start directly as big >> companies. Some small local ISPs do not consider to be a good >> "investment" to become LIR from day 0, so they don't. They start >> with a small *assignment* (not very often a sub-allocation) from >> the upstream provider >> >> [...] >> >> Weather this situation should be treated in the document - not >> sure. However having a mention that this is not how things are >> supposed to happen would be a good idea. > > I think this would indeed be a good place to recommend against this, > but maybe the other way around: "When providing address space to a > smaller ISP you should give them a sub-allocation (not an assignment) > that allows them to make properly sized (see the rest of this BCOP) > assignments to their customers." or something like that.
+1. I introduced this text into section 4.1.5 and here comes the BCOP draft v.4 ;) https://www.sinog.si/docs/draft-IPv6pd-BCOP-v4.pdf Can you please all have a look if this document is now ready for publication? We are receiving many requests for a stable document on this topic - and we've been "babysitting" this one quite long enough. So, my question is - should we publish it as a stable RIPE BCP document? Cheers and thnx, Jan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
