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 ]
Elvis Daniel Velea
elvis at v4escrow.net
Tue Mar 4 14:04:08 CET 2014
Hi Tore, On 04/03/14 13:16, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Elvis Daniel Velea > >> Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been >> changed to ALLOCATED PAs. > Small correction here, I only noted that there exist some ALLOCATED PA > in the database that are smaller than the minimum allocation size. I do > not know how that came to be, so I don't know if they were ASSIGNED PI > before. thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that you had remarked PI to PA conversions. I've only now checked the history of the blocks you have mentioned and these have always been ALLOCATED PA (with an allocation size lower than the minimum). > > My point was that the minimum allocation size doesn't appear to be a > hard limit on what is the minimum ALLOCATED PA object that is allowed to > exist in the registry; but rather it should be considered the minimum > allocation size the RIPE NCC is willing to issue[1] new at any given > time. A PI->PA conversion isn't a "new issue" in that way, hence there's > no real reason to apply the minimum allocation size, IMHO. As those > mini-assignments are already in the registry, it doesn't hurt > aggregation either. I understand and agree with you. However, let's not forget that the RIPE NCC has made in the past PI assignments of even a /29. > In any case, it would appear to me that the community is simply waiting > for someone (perhaps you and/or Erik?) to care enough to actually submit > a formal policy proposal to allow for such conversions. The NCC > indicated that they felt clear policy was needed. I see. I was under a different impression, that the community was waiting for a policy proposal from Erik which would enable PI transfers. Erik, are you working on a proposal that would (also) enable status changes? Do you need help with it? cheers, 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. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140304/c17e9fc0/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: logo.png Type: image/png Size: 5043 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140304/c17e9fc0/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 1.png Type: image/png Size: 11971 bytes Desc: not available URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140304/c17e9fc0/attachment-0001.png>
- 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 ]