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/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Tue Mar 4 09:30:27 CET 2014
Elvis, all - this is being worked on as we speak. A little more patience, please - if I may ask. I am confident - at least I hope - that something presentable will be ready for the upcoming RIPE meeting in Warsaw. Best regards, -C. On 04.03.2014 01:25, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing > list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens. > > The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a > discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I > understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would > include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to > ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR > has been stopped and I would like to restart it. > > My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to > be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from > ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has > also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to > ALLOCATED PAs. > > By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is > suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly > recorded in the registry/RIPE Database. > > By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the > community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's > e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented. > > Therefore, I'm curious: > - should we restart the discussion? > - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't > yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min > /22) > - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement? > > Kind regards, > Elvis > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]