<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello, Tore!<br>
Thank you for quick feedback.<br>
After the example you gave - I understood the purpose of the
introduction for IPv4.<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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…
<br>
</blockquote>
So sorry.<br>
My mistake. <br>
<blockquote type="cite">ASSIGNED PA object (for example /20)</blockquote>
I had in mind <b>ALLOCATED</b> <b>PA</b> <b>/20</b>, which
divided to much /<b>24</b>, which is<b> ASSIGNED PA </b>already.<b><br>
</b>Thank you!<b><br>
<br>
</b></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/16/24 13:55, Tore Anderson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:9750a4c6-4813-4136-b6fb-11af6a44df5f@fud.no">Hi there,
<br>
<br>
* APEX NCC ORG
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
Can you provide an example of using and registering an
AGGREGATED-BY-LIR object for IPV4?
<br>
Who is this for and when?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
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.
<br>
<br>
Here's an example, which represent 256 essential identical
ASSIGNED PA objects:
<br>
<br>
inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.255
<br>
netname: CLOUDPROVIDER-CUSTOMER-VMS
<br>
descr: IP addresses dynamically assigned to virtual machines
running in CloudProvider's public cloud infrastructure # this is
optional
<br>
assignment-size: 32 # this is optional
<br>
country: NO
<br>
admin-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
<br>
tech-c: CLOUDPROVIDER-RIPE
<br>
status: AGGREGATED-BY-LIR
<br>
mnt-by: CLOUDPROVIDER-MNT
<br>
source: RIPE
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Is its use mandatory?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Not at all, feel free to ignore it and continue doing whatever
you've been doing so far.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Initially, the assignment policy was
discussed as an assignment for cloud providers.
<br>
What should a provider do, for example, if it has a status
ASSIGNED PA object (for example /20),
<br>
splits it into /24 objects also like ASSIGNED PA with additional
routes obj. for its end clients (without NAT / with NAT)?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
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…
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Is it here an AGGREGATED-BY-LIR status
objects? Or NOT?
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
…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.
<br>
<br>
Tore
<br>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Best wishes,
APEX NCC ORG
--------------------------------
+38(056)-731-99-11,
+38(067)-731-99-11,
+38(050)-731-99-11,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.trifle.net">www.trifle.net</a></pre>
</body>
</html>