[address-policy-wg] 2014-02 New Policy Proposal (Allow IPv4 PI transfer)

On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>
> These requirements are in my opinion out of touch with operational
> reality; networks evolve and change over time, and given enough time,
> pretty much all assignments made will end up being used in a different
> way than what the original criteria was. The PI assignment request form
> asked for an very detailed criteria, with a breakdown of each individual
> subnet in the network, and a listing of all the equipment that would be
> used, including the manufacturer name and model numbers. So if you in
> the 1990s received an assignment that you had said was for a dozen brand
> new Sun UltraServers, you better not have replaced those with modern x86
> hardware, or you have invalidated your assignment! :-O
>
> Some NCC staffers have told me that the way they've logically "solved"
> this impossible requirement was to consider that whenever the
> criteria/purpose changed, the original assignment was returned, and a
> new one consisting of the same block was issued for the new purpose.
> Then they could just "optimise out" the middle steps where the
> assignment was removed and re-added. That approached worked (up until
> Sep 2012 anyway), but I think it would be much better if the policy
> didn't worry so much about the "original criteria", but rather focus on
> whether or not the assignment conforms to the address policy in effect
> at any given time. If it does, there is no reason to call it invalid.
>
>
Well said.

When specifying a purpose for a use, it is quite difficult to provide
something that is generic enough to last for the lifetime of operations,
rather than the lifetime of something else entirely.

-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140421/5be0935e/attachment.html>