(please see below)
On Tue, 24 Aug 2021, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 11:26:12AM -0700, Leo Vegoda wrote:
I have always understood that the confidentiality requirement was
intended to apply to any business information supplied to justify an
allocation of resources and not the outcome, which is published in the
RIPE Database and elsewhere. I understood that the goal was to assure
the businesses operating networks that chatty staff would not gossip
about what those businesses planned but had not announced.
Leo has been around about as long as I have - and his understanding of
the reasoning matches mine.
Let me illustrate this a bit: "back in the days", ISPs were given IPv4
allocations based on network deployment *plans*. Like "we intend to
expand to neighbouring country <x>, cities <a>, <b> and <c>, and
we expect to have <z-1000> customers there by mid next year" - this
sort of information is something I would not like my competitors to
have, and thus I always found it reassuring that the NCC would not
share these strategic details.
The end result ("1.2.0.0/16 allocated to XYZ inc.") is - and needs to
be - public, so some coarse information about growth plans is/was visible,
but not the details.
Hi Gert, Leo, All,
This is perfectly understandable.
But i guess the issue is dramatically different -- it's about knowing
** WHO ** is really the ISP, i.e. which company from which jurisdiction.
Cheers,
Carlos
Gert Doering
-- LIR contact since too many years
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
