[address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space

Hello Sander,

Thank you for the clear reply. If I combine this with other things on the
mailing list in the last 3 weeks I agree with you that it is better to
request a /21 range (you get it when you become a LIR) compared to a /24
(PI) if you just need a /24. This is clearly the best way to conserve IPv4
address space.

With kind regards,

Mark Scholten

-----Original Message-----
From: Sander Steffann [mailto:sander at steffann.nl] 
Sent: donderdag 16 juli 2009 22:01
To: Stream Service || Mark Scholten
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space

Hello Mark,

> If you ask me it should be allowed to use PI space for clients (and  
> give
> clients the option to use/maintain more than a /30 (IPv4)).

PI policy explicitly states that PI space can not be re-assigned or  
further assigned to other parties. See
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-471.html#9 
. Any organisation that needs address space for its customers must use  
PA space. The definition of an LIR is that it assigns address space to  
its customers. PI space is (per definition) only to be used by the  
company that requested it itself.

> It is also in my
> opinion not to RIPE (community or the NCC) to ask that information.  
> The
> should ask for general usage, how much would be used for clients for
> example. How many clients a company has shouldn't be important to  
> get PI.

In this case it doesn't matter. That the company needs address space  
for *any* customers indicates that PI space is not appropriate and PA  
space should be used. The company uses address space for customers and  
therefore must become an LIR.

I think it is now time to stop this discussion, at least on the  
address policy mailing list. This discussion is not leading to a  
viable policy proposal.

Thanks,
Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair