Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal / reservation revisited?
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 16:00:36 +0200
Hi,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:21:56PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> To me, this rather sounds like a case for revisiting reservation,
> rather than arguing for a new registry type/structure/rules.
It's similar, but "reservation" is not what I have in mind.
> Am I missing something?
Yes - multi-level structures.
"Reservation" is:
- I give this /24 to that company, even if they only need a /27 today,
because they might need it in a couple of years.
"Multi-Level Structure" is:
- I give this /22 (or whatever) to that reseller of mine. He is going
to distribute this /22 to his customers, filling in proper RIPE-141s
for each subnet, following all the RIPE policies & procedures, and
documenting each assignment in the RIPE database.
This is along the lines of "ALLOCATED PA" - I have the address space,
but MUST NOT use it, before it has been turned (piece by piece) into
"ASSIGNED PA".
Stephen's proposal (MIR) means "make a level between RIR and LIR that
gets space from the RIR, can do ALLOCATED PA to (its) LIRs, and has to
be a separate organization".
My proposal is less formally structured, but boils down to about the same
thing - permit multiple levels of "ALLOCATED PA". But in the final step,
the address space must be ASSIGNED PA, according to the normal rules,
which means "no reservation".
I see a big difference :-) but maybe it's just me...?
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
