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

Hello, Tore!
Thank you for quick feedback.
After the example you gave - I understood the purpose of the 
introduction for IPv4.

> I do not quite understand this use case. I believe it is not common to 
> split an ASSIGNED PA object into more specific ASSIGNED PA objects. To 
> be honest, I didn't even know that was possible. Anyway…
So sorry.
My mistake.
> ASSIGNED PA object (for example /20)
I had in mind *ALLOCATED* *PA* */20*, which divided to much /*24*, which 
is*ASSIGNED PA *already.*
*Thank you!*

*

On 4/16/24 13:55, Tore Anderson wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> * APEX NCC ORG
>>
>> Can you provide an example of using and registering an 
>> AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object for IPV4?
>> Who is this for and when?
>>
> It has exactly the same use case as AGGREGATED-BY-LIR for IPv6. It is 
> primarily intended for LIRs which need to make a large number of 
> essentially identical assignments, which can then be aggregated into a 
> single database object rather than registering a bunch of redundant 
> objects.
>
> Here's an example, which represent 256 essential identical ASSIGNED PA 
> objects:
>
> inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255
> netname: CLOUDPROVIDER-CUSTOMER-VMS
> descr: IP addresses dynamically assigned to virtual machines running 
> in CloudProvider's public cloud infrastructure # this is optional
> assignment-size: 32 # this is optional
> country: NO
> admin-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
> tech-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
> status: AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
> mnt-by: CLOUDPROVIDER-MNT
> source: RIPE
>
>
>> Is its use mandatory?
>>
> Not at all, feel free to ignore it and continue doing whatever you've 
> been doing so far.
>
>
>> 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)?
>>
> I do not quite understand this use case. I believe it is not common to 
> split an ASSIGNED PA object into more specific ASSIGNED PA objects. To 
> be honest, I didn't even know that was possible. Anyway…
>
>
>> Is it here an AGGREGATED-BY-LIR  status objects? Or NOT?
>>
> …as I understand it, in your example, the 16 /24 ASSIGNED PA objects 
> have unique mnt-routes: values. If so, that means you cannot aggregate 
> the 16 /24s into a single AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object.
>
> Tore

-- 
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/20240416/4cd0c54c/attachment.html>