[address-policy-wg] A question

... and there's always the LIR-PARTITIONED option which almost nobody uses.

btw, regarding the two options I presented earlier, If you do not have 
any intention in further transferring the space within two years, I 
would recommend using the transfer procedure.
I recommend using the transfer policy because the RIPE NCC has updated 
their process for mergers and acquisitions and it's now (from my 
experience) painfully long and difficult (if you do not fit perfectly in 
their script).

cheers,
elvis

On 26/03/14 09:22, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Wilfried Woeber
>
>> ...and, depending on what the distribution of customer assignments
>> across the overall address space looks like, you may be able to use
>> the suballocation mechanism.
>>
>> Admittedly, I have never used that or did any in-depth analysis of
>> the possibilities. Just a hint to maybe also look at. I may be fully
>> off-track, too.
> I think both you and Elvis are spot-on.
>
> There are even more options than the three already mentioned...
>
> 4) If the assignments in question are made to the new spun off company's
> own infrastructure (which may include separate end-users or customers if
> they're single-address such as the DHCP pool of a broadband ISP, cf.
> ripe-606 section 6.2), then the old company/LIR may simply delegate the
> blocks to the new company by registering completely standard ASSIGNED PA
> inetnums. In this case there are no minimum size limits to worry about
> (sub-allocations are limited at /24, transfers at /22 as Elvis noted).
>
> 5) In the case that #4 doesn't work because the customers of the new
> company have specific (non-pooled) assignments, the new company could
> simply contract the old company to provide the registry services
> directly for them. In other words that the old company will continue to
> maintain the assignments in the database for each individual
> (non-pooled) customer of the new company. This option would obviously
> require a tight working relationship between the new and old companies,
> as every time the new company lands a new customer, they the old company
> must register the associated assignment.
>
> Those two options, as well as the sub-allocation option, have the added
> benefit that they're cheaper for the new company, as it doesn't have to
> become an LIR on its own and pay the NCC membership fee.
>
> In any case, Nigel's problem statement is very similar to the one
> presented by Sascha Pollok in Athens as the rationale for 2013-05:
>
> https://ripe67.ripe.net/archives/video/32/
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05
>
> Considering that 2013-05 blitzed through the PDP with hardly any
> opposition, I'd say that Nigel's worry that moving around the addresses
> in the manner described is considered "reprehensible" is completely
> unfounded; "totally OK" would be more accurate, I think.
>
> Tore
>


-- 
<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/20140326/eeec6179/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/20140326/eeec6179/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/20140326/eeec6179/attachment-0001.png>