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

Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Wilfried Woeber
> 
> 
>>I soemwhat lost track about the RIPE Region's Address Transfer Policy
>>(proposal/s), so please bear with me.
>>
>>IMHO we SHOULD try to remove insconsistencies and special cases in
>>the various policies and their interpretation.
>>
>>Thus: if there is (or will be) a (lower) limit in a/the Transfer
>>Policy, then the same SHOULD apply in moving blocks from PI to PA.
>>
>>OTOH, if the community agrees and lifting size restrictions, then
>>this should be done consistently across the board.
> 
> 
> The current PA-only transfer policy states: «The block that is to be
> re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size
> at the time of re-allocation».
> 
> In other words blocks smaller than /22 may not be transferred,
> regardless of PI or PA status. Since the policy is quite explicit on
> this point, changing it would require the community to adopt a policy
> proposal that explicitly made such a change.
> 
> [BTW: The policy also states that the minimum allocation size is /21,
> but there have been a couple of /22 transfers already. I assume the NCC
> is considering the /21 statement as superseded by the last /8 policy and
> considers the minimum allocation size to be /22 instead.]

OK, thanks Tore!

So - question to the IPRAs: what sizes of PI blocks did you see when the
PI->PA conversion requests were submitted?

Wilfried.

> Tore