AddOn --- Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?

A thought just crossed my mind:

those of you striving to deny slots in the routing tables to non-LIRs, what
do you think about splitting a PA and announcing parts out of different
AS'es ? This isn't really a de-aggregate, serves the 'address conservation'
constraint but is utilizing routing table space. Wasn't the 'sub-allocation'
type intended for this and must have had some consensus to become
implemented ?

Maybe there should be added a PA allocation rule that each PA has to be
announced only out of one AS.

No ? We can't do this ? Why not ? Be splitting PA's this way the LIR create
a address space type that can be moved along very similar to PI, just
without being handed out directly to the customer.

Would be an idea:
I split one of our PA into /24's and lend them to enterprise customers free
for announcement via their favourite ISP charging a yearly fee (obvisously
the fee only for administering the RIPE data, as charging for addresses
isn't allowed.).

Marcus

----------------------------------------------------------
            Tropolys Rhein-Main GmbH

      Network Engineering and Administration

 Fon: +49-(0)6131/129343 | Fax: +49-(0)6131/129321
      Mombacher Str. 40, 55122 Mainz, Germany
----------------------------------------------------------
 AS15837 | AS8638 | MG3031-RIPE
----------------------------------------------------------


----- Original Message -----
From: "Marcus Gerdon" <marcus.gerdon at mainz-kom.de>
To: <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?