[address-policy-wg] Input request for the PI Transfer policy

Hi Erik,

I, personally, would put the /24 limit in policy. Anything lower than a 
/24 can no longer be split by the RIPE NCC and must be transferred in 
one block.

cheers,
elvis

On 24/03/14 23:44, Erik Bais wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> As you might know, we are currently working on a policy proposal to 
> allow the transfer of PI space.
>
> One of the topics that I would like some input (prior to sending out 
> the proposal itself) it the following:
>
> In the current draft, I've phrased one of the 'rules' for the PI 
> transfer as follows:
>
> -Assignments smaller than the minimal allocation size, can't be split 
> into smaller assignments, but can be re-assigned as a complete 
> assignment.
>
> My reasoning is that it would disallow cutting up small assignments 
> into even smaller assignments.
>
> So in the current situation a /23 PI assignment is smaller than the 
> minimal allocation size, however assigned in the past by the RIPE NCC.
>
> With the above stated 'rule' in the proposal, it would not be allowed 
> to split up a PI assignment into 2 PI assignments of a /24 .. or 4 PI 
> assignments of a /25, but it would be allowed to do a complete 
> re-assignments as a /23.
>
> With the current new proposal 2014-1 put forward today, the question 
> that we discussed last week (myself, Marco and Andrea ) is that if we 
> would put this forward, that this might need to be re-phrased.
>
> The question that I have is, would the community prefer a transfer 
> policy proposal for PI with or without the above stated rule or 
> limitation in freedom in transfers of PI.
>
> The goal of the PI transfer policy proposal is to have it similar as 
> the current Transfer policy for PA space.
>
> Let's hear it.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Erik Bais
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140325/13346825/attachment.html>