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/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre.Chapuis at swisscom.com
Andre.Chapuis at swisscom.com
Fri Aug 5 16:39:00 CEST 2016
Once again since it seems not to have gone through... -----Original Message----- From: Chapuis André, INI-ON-EPC-IPE Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 3:15 PM To: 'l.yurkina at ripn.net' <l.yurkina at ripn.net>; Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED Hi Everybody, I agree with Larisa. As a LIR 'responsible for ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks, the amount of work to change all that would be huge compared to the gain. Back in 2002, I did a review of these blocks and managed to get a good number of assignments back, that we re-used as ASSIGNED PA. It also allowed us to update the real PI records. But this was quite a time-intensive exercise I'd prefer not to do again. Furthermore, knowing that our allocations are full to 90%, there's not much room for 'misuse' the PI policy (which actually does not apply in this case!) by assigning PI ourselves -> so benefit is quite inexistent Regards, André -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Larisa Yurkina Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 1:40 PM To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED Randy Bush пишет 04.08.2016 14:12: >> My LIR have got ALLOCATED PI and ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks about >> 20 years ago, according to those days policy. Some part of address >> space was not aggregated and was used as "ASSIGNED PI within >> ALLOCATED PI", all of them have agreement with the LIR, which also >> was within the policy, at least not against. Why should we change >> anything here? Just because some LIRs lost their control over 50% of >> the address space allocated to them? Perhaps there are some other ways to restore it? >> >>>> After the LIRs have finished their research, the RIPE NCC will: >>>> >>>> - Convert assignments to ASSIGNED PA if it can be documented that >>>> the administrative responsibility lies with the LIR >>>> - Follow up directly with resource holders of ASSIGNED PI to apply >>>> the RIPE policy, “Contractual Requirements for Provider >>>> Independent Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”. The >>>> PI assignments will become part of the address space managed by >>>> the RIPE NCC just like all other PI space. Once the resource >>>> holders have fulfilled the contractual requirements, they will >>>> have the same rights and obligations as any other End User of PI >>>> space. >>>> - Split the allocations to separate the PI assignments and convert >>>> the blocks that remain with an LIR to ALLOCATED PA. > i am perennially confused by the different colors of integers. as you > know, i prefer magenta and comic sans. > > ingrid/ncc can you explain in terms an antique router geek can > understand what the actual pragmatic effect would be on these PI/PA > holders? does it alter holders' rights? costs? processes? ... > > i suspect that you, larisa, already understand that. in this case, > why, in pragmatic terms a router geek can understand (yes, i know > that's a high bar, sorry), do you not like it? > > randy Hi Randy, 1. Manual update inetnums from ASSIGNED PI into ASSIGNED PA in two /16 blocks creates a lot of additional job for my LIR. 2. Lack of reasonable explanations for customers why this should be done. That is why I'd prefer not to change anything here. -- With respect, *Larisa Yurkina* RIPN Internet Number Resources Group / Chief Manager l.yurkina at ripn.net <mailto:l.yurkina at ripn.net> / www.ripn.net <http://www.ripn.net> Т.: +7 495 737-0604 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 5540 bytes Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160805/a7522211/attachment.p7s>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]