[address-policy-wg] IPv4 PA assignments policy change draft proposal

Hi,

On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 12:47:11PM +0000, Jeroen Lauwers wrote:
> b. Arguments opposing the proposal
> ??? An exception to the main rule does not make the overall policy more understandable.

This.  

I am not convinced why adding a special-case "may" for "LIR to itself" 
while keeping the "must" for "LIR to others" would be a good idea of any 
sorts.

"The database has issues with having an allocation being used all-in-one
for one specific customer (the LIR itself)" is an implementation detail,
but policy should not be driven by "database stuff is hard".


Now, relaxing the overall mandate on customer data registration to
something that just states "this is assigned, and the responsible
tech/abuse contacts are as follows" without requiring to name any
customers would be something I find a useful thought, given that the
argument "assignments used to be necessary to document allocation 
usage, when coming back to the NCC" is as valid for LIR-to-itself
as for LIR-to-third-parties.


Gert Doering
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20220514/c7b3e17c/attachment.sig>