[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

> Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI"
> and "not really real PI".

is there a list of all the colors and what they mean?

> This proposal aims to unify all PI into one colour, which I think is
> good for the resource holders (no uncertainity) - but there is
> potential fallout, like "we've been doing IPv4 PI assignments all the
> years, and nobody bothered!" - which technically could be done from
> "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" blocks, but was always outside RIPE policies -
> and if these are now properly labeled and tagged, certain business
> practices might no longer be possible.

are certain business practices to be compared to uncertain business
practices? :)

i have this feeling you are trying to say something here.  i.e. if i am
the LIR, can i move "not really real PI" between customers and no one
knows?

> Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was
> originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller fragments
> in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - so the /14
> won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics.

lemme see if i get this.  to have the owner registration correct, some
address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple IRs, thus
fragmenting routing?  i like correct registration, but the commons has
become pretty polluted.

> So, to answer your question: for those "swampy PI", it would alter
> their rights (contracts according to 2007-01), costs (50 EUR/year)

whoops.  that's gonna cause unhappiness.

randy