[address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses

Dear Tore,

> So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to
> justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if
> they had gone through a full transfer instead?

Correct. Why not?

Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good
for now.
Sub-allocations is very good alternative for transfers.

--
Kind regards,
Alexey Ivanov
LeaderTelecom B.V.

01.10.2012 18:58 - Tore Anderson написал(а):
 * LeaderTelecom B.V.

> Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who
> need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very
> simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation.
>  
> Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20
> every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count.
>  
> I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period
> (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve
> months ).
>  
> Pros:
> 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side)
> 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database.
> 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space.
>  
> I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP
> will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from
> other LIRs is better for community.

So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to
justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if
they had gone through a full transfer instead?

Best regards,
--
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - [1]http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
 

[1] http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20121003/6f455a8b/attachment.html>