[address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)

Hi Nick,


On 10/10/13 2:36 PM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 10/10/2013 11:57, Andrea Cima wrote:
>> 1) Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA
>> allocations (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size)
>> 2) Do not allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA allocations
> Andrea,
>
> On May 7 2009, Alex le Heux posted a breakdown of IPv4 PI assignment
> statistics:
>
>> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2009-May/004212.html
> This indicated at at the time, only ~20% of all ipv4 PI assignments were
> /22 or larger.
>
> The two choices presented here mean that the 80% of people with PI
> assignments of /23 or less would be disenfranchised by this policy
> regardless of which way it might go.

I would like to clarify that, by definition, IP address space with the status "ALLOCATED PA" can only be allocated to an LIR.

Around 2,800 PI blocks have been assigned to organisations that later became LIRs. Approximately 1,000 of these PI assignments are equal to, or larger than, a /22. Approximately 1,800 of these PI assignments are smaller than a /22.


> Also it's not compatible with the
> efforts under way to unify pi/pa ipv6.
>
> I.e. I don't think that either of these options is necessarily a good idea.

We presented these two options at RIPE 66 based on feedback we had received from LIRs in our day-to-day work. After becoming LIRs, many of these organisations were asking us to change the status of their PI assignments. If the community feels there are different or better options than the ones we have suggested, we hope that these can be brought forward and discussed.


Best regards,
Andrea Cima

RIPE NCC



> Nick
>
>