Hi Roger, > That's also why Sander Steffann's earlier mail included one piece that > wasn't what I suggested: > > <snip> >>> The reason for asking a RIR is that they already have the >>> infrastructure in place... and for those that read ALL of the text in >>> my original post, I suggested we asked RIPE :) >> >> Request noted :-) >> >> If this WG chooses to ask RIPE: The RIPE NCC will need a RIPE policy to use >> when allocating/assigning address space. Once we have a clear document that >> describes the basics we can work on that in the RIPE Address Policy WG. > > RIPE policy would not be the one describing or deciding on how the > space should be given out, that would be upto LISP-EIB-wg@IETF/or > something else. RIPE's job in my above suggestion would be to keep > track of the space, providing RDNS and simliar..
In that case the question should go directly to the RIPE NCC and not to the RIPE community. If this is not going to be defined in RIPE policy then the RIPE NCC members and the RIPE NCC Executive Board have to decide if they want the RIPE NCC to do the job. After all: the members provide the funding for the RIPE NCC. Cheers, Sander _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
