[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

Hello Sander,

I think that in that case PI should be removed. Because else it could have a big legal impact I think. Processing requests from 2 companies different by an organization that has a monopoly isn't a very smart way to work (and the risk for legal issues is very big).

With kind regards, 

Mark Scholten

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: dinsdag 15 september 2009 11:59
To: Mark Scholten
Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; 'Michiel Klaver'; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

Hi Mark,

> Would it be an option to have something written in the policy that means
> the following?
> The reserved /10 (or other range) from the last /8 RIPE NCC receives from
> IANA is to be used for PA allocations. Whenever there are no other
> addresses available to use for PI allocations the /10 (or part of
> that)(that effective are the last IPv4 addresses RIPE NCC can provide to
> the RIPE community at that time) can also be used for other allocations,
> like PI.

The problem with that is that the /10 would be used up in a *very* short
time. I think we can get away (legally speaking) with not reserving any
address space for separate organisations (PI), but I don't think we can
get away with 'blocking the market' for new providers / LIRs (PA).

Which is why I proposed to reserve space for PA initial allocations :)  I
could be wrong here ofcourse...

Thanks,
Sander