[address-policy-wg] IPv4 status hierarchies

Dear colleagues,

Thank you to everyone who responded to our earlier questions on the intent of the policy regarding IPv4 status hierarchies.

While this was helpful, it would be great if we could have input from a wider group of people:

- Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another?
- Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation?
- Do we need a policy update?

https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2020-June/013195.html

We look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC





> On 16 Jun 2020, at 15:36, Petrit Hasani <phasani at ripe.net> wrote:
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> We are reviewing IPv4 status hierarchies in the RIPE Database (looking at objects with the same status as their less-specifics).
> 
> Some cases are clear - "ASSIGNED PA" shouldn't be allowed under "ASSIGNED PA", for example. Other statuses might need a closer look and we would like guidance from this working group.
> 
> The RIPE Database does not currently have any limitations on creating inetnums that have the status "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" under inetnums with the same status. This often results in chains of inetnums that have the same status, sometimes ending with the sub-allocation of a single IP address.
> 
> Although this might not seem useful at first glance, there might be practical uses for a few levels of sub-allocation. For example, a global company could give sub-allocations to its national branches, which make smaller sub-allocations to their multiple daughter companies. These daughter companies could then create and maintain assignments for their actual networks.
> 
> However, this is not allowed under a strict reading of the policy, as only the LIR itself can make sub-allocations, and these must be used for assignments.
> 
> Section 5.3 "Sub-allocations" of the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies (ripe-733) states:
> 
> "Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation and can only be made from allocations with a status of "ALLOCATED PA".
> 
> [...]
> 
> LIRs may make sub-allocations to multiple downstream network operators."
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#54
> 
> Before making any changes, we want to be sure that we understand the intent of the policy and what the community wants us to do. Thus, we would like to hear from the Address Policy Working Group:
> 
> - Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another?
> - Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation?
> - Do we need a policy update?
> 
> We look forward to your guidance.
> 
> Kind regards,
> --
> Petrit Hasani
> Policy Officer
> RIPE NCC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20200702/07daa88a/attachment.sig>