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 ]
Andrea Cima
andrea at ripe.net
Tue Jun 25 12:28:36 CEST 2013
Hi All, On 6/25/13 11:58 AM, Wilfried Woeber wrote: > 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 is considering the /21 statement as superseded by the last /8 policy and 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.] This statement is correct: we consider the /21 statement as superseded by the last /8 policy, according to which the minimum allocation size is /22. > OK, thanks Tore! > > So - question to the IPRAs: what sizes of PI blocks did you see when the > PI->PA conversion requests were submitted? Most of the requests for conversion from assigned PI to allocated PA have been for IP blocks larger than the minimum allocation size (mainly /20 and /19 blocks). Just in very few cases the IP blocks were smaller than the minimum allocation size (/23 and /24 blocks). Best regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC > Wilfried. > >> Tore > >
- 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 ]