[address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Larisa A. Yurkina
ula at ripn.net
Thu Aug 20 11:28:49 CEST 2009
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > Hi Philip, all, Hi Wilfried, Philip, all, > > just let me state that I support the general idea and goal. So do i. > Neverthless I have a couple of open issues before I could state my > personal support for the proposal. > > the very basic question would be: why would this policy be targetted at > new LIRs, and towards additional allocations, instead of targetting *all* > additioal assignments in the first place? > > There are pockets of network around, where the customers (completely separate > legal entities) do hold (and properly use) *much* more legacy address space > from the past (but the LIR doesn't!), than the amount of PA space managed by > the (related) LIR. > > This would also address Larisa's concern, imho, regarding documentation? > I suppose yes, thank you. > Philip Smith wrote: > > Hi Larisa, > [...] > > What I'm proposing is that LIRs who hold pre-rir addresses simply > > document the utilisation of those addresses, and at what level. If your > > customer has received pre-RIR space from you, > > How could that happen? I am obviously missing something here... > > > and they are announcing it > > all to you, then I'd say it is reasonable to assume that they are using > > it. If they are only announcing 50% of it, then it is reasonable to > > assume that only 50% is being used. The other 50% could be used by other > > customers of yours, or in your own infrastructure, etc. > > Caution, can of worms! This is again assuming that everyone has to announce > all of their resources to everywhere on the 'one and only' Internet. :-) > Of course, the *assumption* is probably very resonable in many/most cases, > but is not enough, in my opinion, to use it as a hard policy argument? Policy proposal says about 'documentation' but not about 'use'. 'Use' and 'documentation' is not the same. > > > The policy proposal requests LIRs who have address space that is not > > used to indicate so when they apply for fresh space. In other words, > > request LIRs to use unused space first before applying for fresh space. > > I think, again, this mixes LIR, ISP and customer, isn't it? I'd add something. My LIR has several allocations really ancient, 1995 -1998. Which of them are "pre-rir", which are not, is not clear to me. I'm afraid that it is going to become clear only when additinal allocation will be required. What kind of documentation should I submit then? > > > Does this address your concerns? > > > > philip > > -- > > Wilfried. > > PS: Philip - is this intended as or going to be a Global Policy Proposal, > eventually? > > With respect, Larisa Yurkina --- RIPN Registry center -----
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2008-07 Discussion Period extended until 24 August 2009 (Ensuring efficient use of historical IPv4 resources)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]