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

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 02:10:33PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> [Randy]> whoops.  that's gonna cause unhappiness.
> 
> Dunno.  We (the RIPE community and the NCC) rolled out 2007-01 to all the 
> other PI holders, and the amount of unhappiness was not very big.  
> 
> Those cases that I was involved with my "LIR admin-c" hat on, PI holders 
> seemed to be happy to have a clear contract with a known entity (us), and 
> the assurance that this would ensure that nobody else could make claims 
> to their address space.

Acting, amongst other tasks on the LIR side of the table, as a consultant to/representative of an organization holding & actively using several PI assignments from AU space I can fully second that.
We can happily live with the fees. But not being able to "act fully autonomously" with regard to those netblocks is considered quite annoying and has even hindered some network redesign efforts in the past ("how can we be sure $NETBLOCK will still be routed properly once we touch sth?" etc.). So leaving that uncertainty behind us and having a clear contractual relationship with RIPE NCC would be very welcome, from this specific common's perspective.
Me seems a cleaned up RIPE DB is a good thing, too.

best

Enno




-- 
Enno Rey

ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902 

Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey

=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================