[address-policy-wg] 2023-04 Proposal Accepted (Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for IPv4 PA assignments)

Good day!

Can you provide an example of using and registering an AGGREGATED-BY-LIR 
object for IPV4?
Who is this for and when?
Is its use mandatory?

Initially, the assignment policy was discussed as an assignment for 
cloud providers.
What should a provider do, for example, if it has a status ASSIGNED PA 
object (for example /20),
splits it into /24 objects also like ASSIGNED PA with additional routes 
obj. for its end clients (without NAT / with NAT)?
Is it here an AGGREGATED-BY-LIR  status objects? Or NOT?

Thank you!

On 4/15/24 17:50, Angela Dall'ara wrote:
> Dear colleagues,

>
> Consensus has been reached on 2023-04 "Add AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status 
> for IPv4 PA assignments".
>
> This proposal aimed at introducing the AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status for 
> IPv4 PA assignments to reduce LIR efforts in registration and maintenance.
>
> You can find the full proposal 
> at:
 
https://www.ripe.net/membership/policies/proposals/2023-04/
>
> The new RIPE Document is called ripe-822 and is available at:

> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-822/
>
>
> We estimate that this proposal will take around two months to fully 
> implement.
>
> We will send another announcement once the implementation is complete 
> and the new procedures are in place.
> 

> Thanks to everyone who provided input.
> 

>
> Kind regards,
>
> Angela Dall'Ara
> Policy Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
-- 
Best wishes,
APEX NCC ORG
--------------------------------
+38(056)-731-99-11,
+38(067)-731-99-11,
+38(050)-731-99-11,
www.trifle.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20240416/4c3bf46a/attachment.html>