RE: [GLOBAL-V6] Comments on AP Consensus

["Michel Py" <michel@arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us>]

> Carlos Friacas wrote:
> About the "large enterprises", well, its a very simple ideia,
> but why not creating a category similar to the LIR category,
> but with the restriction of not being allowed to assign to
> third-party (that would be a LIR!) This would generate also
> a discussion on the size of allocation for this LER (Large
> Enterprise Registry), but this would be a minor problem, no?

As I pointed on some IETF lists, I find the LIR definition somehow inconsistent with RIR and NIR.
If one was to follow the same logic, RIR, NIR and LIR would be similar (RIR assigns to NIR and LIR, NIR assigns to LIR) except for their scope:

- RIR : ~continent.
- NIR : nation.
- LIR : city / metropolitan area.

Indeed, the logical definition for a LIR should be something like "A provider-independent organization that assigns PI addresses to end-user sites". It does not mean that the actual function could not be performed by an ISP (as mentioned in 6.1.8 of [MHAP]), but the ISP should then be clearly wearing two different hats. I am not convinced that making an ISP a registry is a good idea in the sense that most people would want a registry to be independent from the operators. The LIR could also be the city authority.

I brought this issue regarding the dissapearance of "TLA". It's a matter of semantics, but I think that you should not call an operator or ISP a "registry".

Michel.

-
- This list (global-v6) is handled by majordomo@lists.apnic.net