[ncc-services-wg] 2012-07 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (RIPE NCC Services to Legacy Internet Resource Holders)

Sander Steffann wrote:

> Hi Randy,
> 
> 
>>>>To what benefit would one receive to have the resource considered as
>>>>space allocated by RIPE NCC?

IMHO, with the *current* set of address transfer provisions, it would open the
possibility to transfer (parts of) these addresses.

>>  Perhaps the RIPE NCC can provide some
>>>>examples so we can understand this.
>>>
>>>+1
>>
>>if such a case existed, would they not just become a member?

But, to add another littel bit of Internet Archeology info here.

I did establish our LIR in early 1993. Back then, there was no concept of
PI and PA, yet.

What we had was ISP-based LIRs, last-resort-LIRs on a per country basis, and
in parallel, other mechanisms to obtain blocks of addresses[1].

Thus, initially, our allocation was "unlabelled" and with the introduction of
this attribute,  became status: "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED". As we were operating
this LIR on the procedures of an ISP-based LIR, and thus "PA", eventually we
asked/agreed with the NCC to change the status to "ALLOCATED PA" :-)

Those were the times... ;-)

> If I understand correctly they do become a member and have their legacy address
> space re-labeled as PA space.
> 
> NCC: please correct me if I'm wrong!
> Sander

What I want to achieve with this stuff: back then the world looked a tad different.
There were no "service contracts", formal agreements or "terms and conditions" and
a full paper trail. In particular for those resources obtained outside the framework
of the NCC.

IMHO, any attempt to "manage" eligibility for the registration services based on
today's strict formalities, is going to give us grief - big time.

Wilfried.

[1] the only distinction back then (with "cc" as ISO3166 country codes) was the
    ° RegID: "cc"."isptag" for the ISP-based which later became the LIRs with PA,
      and
    ° RegID: "cc".ZZ were the last-resort, which were a precursor of PI stuff