[address-policy-wg] Re: [ncc-services-wg] Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space

On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:25:45AM -0200, McTim wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Jeroen Wunnink<jeroen at easyhosting.nl> wrote:
> 
> > We have very good relations with our customers, but once I have to pull
> > detailed growth and customer statistics from our customers, it gets kinda
> > awkward. Because these really aren't any of my (or RIPE's for that matter)
> > business.
> 
> I'm not sure that's your call to make.
> 
> I'm all for responsible allocation of resources, but it should
> > really stop at asking expected growth for IP space and how subnets are to be
> > allocated.
> >
> > I got pointed to the rule 'A customer cannot hold more then 2 IP addresses
> > in the PI space', what's up with that ?
> 
> IIRC it's more of a guideline than a "rule" Rules are in the policy
> document where it says:
> 
> "PI space cannot be re-assigned or further assigned to other parties."
> 
> So if you are indeed assigning adresses to your customers, you need PA
> space.    I'm sure that the competent professionals at the NCC have
> pointed you to http://ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 already.


It is not the case. According to http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#62
single IP assigned to End User "considered part of the service provider's
infrastructure". Moreover, if service provider assign several IPs to
the same End User and these IPs could not be aggregated (covered with
common netmask) they are still considered SP infrastructure.

Where I wrong?

 
-- 
Dmitry Kiselev