This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andrzej Dopierała
undefine at aramin.net
Thu Jun 20 11:04:37 CEST 2013
W dniu 20.06.2013 10:20, Tore Anderson pisze: > * andrea >> A. Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments to PA >> allocations (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size) I think, that allow changing purpose of address space from pi to pa will allow more optimal using of address space. Some of pi allocations which i know, are used only because there are "fixed" ip which can't be changed (vpn concetrators, dns servers). rest of pi space isn't used. Allow of translation would allow use of rest of this space and assign it to customers. > I cannot see how denying such requests could possibly be to the benefit > of the community. On the other hand I can clearly see that denying them > would be detrimental by making the NCC appear rigid, inflexible, and > customer-unfriendly; and likely also running counter to the policy's > Registration goal, as some of the LIRs that got such conversion requests > refused would likely go ahead and use the addresses as if they were > labeled PA anyway. > > There is some related precedent, cf. section 5.4 regarding conversion > from ALLOCATED PI and ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED to ALLOCATED PA. > > Personally, I'd even take it one step further and omit the minimum > allocation size constraint too. I consider the minimum allocation size a > policy mechanism that is only there to serve the Aggregation goal. > However, as these delegations are already made, merely relabeling them > does not make any difference when it comes to aggregation. I'm for this idea. If allocation is already made - and it's already visible in internet - there is no reason to treat it differently only because it's a bit smaller than others. > Besides, it is some precedent here too afaict: > > ripencc|SE|ipv4|193.108.42.0|512|20010406|allocated > ripencc|DE|ipv4|193.218.220.0|512|19981110|allocated > ripencc|PT|ipv4|194.117.48.0|512|19941206|allocated > ripencc|IT|ipv4|194.153.212.0|512|20000509|allocated > > > Tore > -- Regards, Andrzej 'The Undefined' Dopierała http://andrzej.dopierala.name/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]