[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space

Hi Sylvain, 

Maybe the definition must be taken a little different: conversion for own use. 

The reason is that some PI-Owner became LIR, e.g. because the size of their business grew, that it became reasonable.
Earlier it didn't make sense for me to become LIR as two /24 were sufficient. 

 With an eye on the "Last /8 Policy", your proposal would mean,  these LIRs would have to return their space without having a chance to get new pa to satisfy their current need.

Anyway, even if I'd return a /22 and receive another PA (my "last /22") this wouldn't give more aggregation. The only thing that changes, would be a huge amount of work for me... or (if not converting my PI to PA I have to pay 50 EUR more than e.g. Deutsche Telekom which holds many many more IPv4 than me, only that because my initial  assignment has the label PI... 

BR Jens



Sylvain Vallerot <sylvain.vallerot at opdop.net> schrieb:
>
>Hi, sorry for my late contribution (and my poor english)
>
>On 20/06/2013 09:49, andrea wrote:
>> A. Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments to PA
>allocations
>> (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size)
>
>I do not support this since blindly allowing LIRs to change PI to PA
>would
>lead to very permissive reuse of space that was assigned in an
>exception mode
>to the aggregation principle for very specific reasons.
>
>So I consider if the purpose of this assignment is no valid anymore
>then it should
>be returned to free pool in the general case, not reused for whatever
>else.
>
>This is enforced by the ability for LIRs to transfer (I mean, to sell)
>PA space.
>Obviously converting PI to PA and sell it would be the right choice for
>anybody
>having unused PI subnets today.
>
>I know convervation looks like an old fashioned and void policy for
>many LIRs
>today, however free IPv4 still is a rare public ressource needed by
>many to
>survive. So available IPs should be returned to RIR.
>
>Best regards,
>Sylvain
>fr.opdop
>
>
>!DSPAM:637,520763c7296831255961281!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130811/43772ea5/attachment.html>