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

Dear Sander, list,

below is an e-mail sent on 8/29 which did not make it to the list.

Dear RIPE NCC admins - please check and help me understand why the 
message forwarded below did not make it to the mailing list as the 
google mail server ( that is used to host my @velea.eu private e-mail 
address) shows it as delivered (in the Sent folder) and I did receive 
the (BCC'ed copy).
- please note, I am hiding the IP address and the from host in the 
headers below with '*x*'. If you need these details, please send me a 
message privately and I will share the IP address and even the name of 
my workstation.

Sander, please take this message into account as well. I hope/think that 
the message below could make a difference.

I am sorry for reacting so late, I did not know that my message did not 
make it to the list until I saw Sander's message with the summary.

Regards,
Elvis




-------- Forwarded Message --------
Return-Path: 	<elvis at velea.eu>
Received: 	from *x* ([*x.x.x.x*]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id 
i80sm14433191wmf.11.2016.08.29.10.09.38 (version=TLS1_2 
cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 
10:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
Reply-To: 	elvis at velea.eu
Subject: 	Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
References: 	<c988893b-d73d-4879-07b8-53ba50f4cfb5 at ripe.net> 
<0a0dcd8a-a685-ed25-6837-0d807c370c21 at velder.li> 
<57A31AAE.6060305 at ripn.net> <m21t24zt1j.wl%randy at psg.com> 
<20160804113710.GJ79185 at Space.Net> <m2y44cycc4.wl%randy at psg.com> 
<20160804121033.GK79185 at Space.Net> 
<b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869 at ripe.net>
To: 	address-policy-wg at ripe.net
From: 	Elvis Daniel Velea <elvis at velea.eu>
Message-ID: 	<48d42760-80dc-2e37-a436-e5ff46de00a3 at velea.eu>
Date: 	Mon, 29 Aug 2016 20:09:37 +0300
User-Agent: 	Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) 
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0
MIME-Version: 	1.0
In-Reply-To: 	<b0218cfd-30fa-4c3e-5a2b-ebbd03cf9869 at ripe.net>
Content-Type: 	text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 	8bit



Hi everyone,


On 8/5/16 4:41 PM, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
> The main issue that we (the WG and the RIPE NCC) are trying to resolve
> is the lack of clarity around the status and rights of these
> assignments. It’s not necessarily the case that the End User
> registration is incorrect. In many cases LIRs have put a lot of effort
> into keeping this information up to date.
I believe that since these were PI assignments - the
holdership/ownership/call-it-whatever of the IP addresses stays with the
company to which this IP block was registered - the PI holder.

If the holder of the PI assignment agrees with the change of the block
from ASSIGNED PI to PA, that will mean they are giving up on their right
to hold/transfer the PI block.

I think the main issue here is: who owns the rights of these IP
addresses? If it's the LIR (because it was an allocation) - then they
could kick the end-user out at any time. If it's the end-user - well,
they should sign maintenance agreements as every PI holder and get those
PIs under the same rules as everyone else's.

I know of at least a few cases where the end-users have requested a PI
assignment and have received one. However, some of them have received
the PI assignments (approved by the RIPE NCC) from an ALLOCATED PI block
while others have received them directly from the RIPE NCC. In both
cases, the only one communicating with the RIPE NCC was the LIR. The
end-users had no idea of the difference between the two PI blocks.

That is why I believe that the NCC should talk to every PI holder from
those PI/unspecified allocations and see if they - the end-users - the
holders of the IP addresses - want to have the PI sponsored by an LIR
(and therefore sign a maintenance agreement) or if they may want the IP
block to be transferred to the LIR holding the large allocation (and
transformed into ASSIGNED PA).

The first step - talking to the allocation holder (the LIR) - is
logical. However, if you only talk to the LIR you will only see one side
of the story. It should be, I believe, the end-user that should decide
whether they give up on their right to those IPs which now have become
assets and are worth money.

Therefore, I think that the RIPE NCC should talk to every single company
holding a PI assignment from an ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED block and give
them the option to give up on the maintenance of the IPs (and the right
to transfer/sell) and transform them into ASSIGNED PA, or become a PI
user - like all the others in the world - and sign a maintenance
agreement with a LIR (and have the €50/year associated cost).

regards,
elvis

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20161020/bf5178c0/attachment.html>