Re: [Wg-ipv6-guide] (ToC11) Database Registration

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

Hi Anne and all,


> hi Izumi,
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > I think I couldn't explain my position very well, so let me explain again.
> > 
> > <Assignments> 
> >  - all assignments must be registered in RIR/NIR database
> >  - registrations are required for assignments through downstream ISPs
> >    as well
> > 
> > <Allocations to downstream ISPs>
> >  It is ambiguous in the policy document, and these are the
> >  possibilities in implementation:
> 
> I think that the policy is clear but the wording used in the policy
> document is misleading or at best confusing.
> 
> >  a) All allocations to downstream ISPs must be registered in RIR/NIR
> >     database 
> >      e.g) If a /40 allocation is made to a downtream ISP, this will be
> >           registered in the database
> > 
> [snip]
> 
> a) above was I believe the intentions of the authors. It is captured in
> the wording: 
> 
>     "When more than a /48 is assigned to an organization, the assigning 
>      organization is responsible for ensuring that the address space is 
>      registered in an RIR/NIR database"
> 
> only i think instead of .. the 'assigning organisation is responsible'
> it should just say the "assigning or sub-allocating organisation" or "the
> LIR who sub-allocates or the downstream who assigns"...?? 
> 
> Since the text cannot be changed by this wg, hopefully the intention 
> can be explained more clearly in the guidelines document.
OK, instinctively, I am for option a) too.

If that was the intention of the authers, then I think we should stick
to option a), but I have one concern. What would be the logic to make
the registrations of sub-allocations compulsory instead of giving the
choice to LIRs?

Sub-allocations are not counted in the utilization rate anyway, and if
an upstream LIR agrees to substitute the contact for network abuse, I
can't think a of reason to explain why they should register
sub-allocations.

Anyone has any thoughts on this?
 
Izumi