[address-policy-wg] PA Assignment questions

The other issue with suggesting that we use PI Space instead of PA Space where we will not be in a position to aggregate is the PI Assignment which would be approved would be less than a /24 (as we don't need 128 addresses for Multi-homed BGP Peering), therefore wouldn't be routable on the Internet (Policy proposal 2006-05 refers to this issue and suggests the smallest PI Space should be /24)


So the only way to implement Multi-Home BGP Routing from Multiple locations which don't need a full /24 network is to become a LIR and create smaller /25 or /26 inetnum's with larger /24 route objects from your PA Space. And since this is a workaround, just like a company stretching the truth about their IP requirements when applying for a PI Space to get a full /24, surely a LIR should be allowed to create inetnum's for a /24 when they also need to create a /24 route object.


Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Nolan, Keith
Sent: 16 July 2009 11:41
To: João Damas; Sascha Lenz
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] PA Assignment questions

I don't have an issue with the answer RIPE NCC provided to me, as it allows me to achieve my required Network design and was following RIPE Policy.


On the RIPE.net page there is a statement about why you may want to become a LIR

"If your organisation needs a large amount of IPv4, IPv6 and AS Numbers, routable blocks of address space and/or makes assignments to End Users or customers" This statement describes my company, therefore we became a LIR.

When you become a LIR a PA Allocation is provided automatically.

The issue I have is as a LIR I have a PA Allocation, the Allocation has enough IP Space to allow me implement my design, however I'm being suggested to use PI Space instead of the PA Space due to the type of design I'm using, and this will cause some of my PA Space to be wasted and is counter to the policy of IP Space conservation.

The workaround which RIPE NCC provided (create /25 or /26 inetnum's but have them all in separate /24 networks and create a /24 route object) will work within the assignments they have already approved, so I can move forward. However I think this workaround shouldn't be required and since I need /24 networks for routing, I should be allowed to create inetnum's for the /24 networks.


And as this is a policy wg, I believed it was a good place to ask this type of question.


Thanks
Keith