AW: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8)

Nick,

although assignments might be out of scope here, but Max isn't strolling that far taking his thought logically.

Is there a limitation on the size of a PI assignment in place at some time in any one of the lately changed policies? Without digging for any actual numbers out of daily business I'd say there's quite a number of assignments exceeding initial alloctions - and easily exceeding the proposed limit of /22 per LIR.

Let me walk a bit further along Max' comment.

As soon as I got that last /22 allocation which policy keeps me from requesting a /19 PI for our own use? As far as I remember (at least in v4-world) LIRs aren't excluded from PI policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according current practice moving all our dynamic DSL-pools into PI space would be quite valid as each customer only get's a single address with the sole purpose being the connection to our network (mirroring hosting/housing to circuit business). 

In addition as a LIR I might come to think of issues with equality in business when running into problems after having used up that last /22 and noticing that ISP running their business on PI space are able to further request addtional IP space.


regards,

Marcus

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engineering IP Services

Versatel West GmbH
Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29
D-44143 Dortmund

Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491
marcus.gerdon at versatel.de | www.versatel.de

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
> [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 22:00
> An: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal 
> (Allocations from the last /8)
> 
> On 16/06/2010 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote:
> > I think, the policy is fair.
> > 
> > But you completely forget the Provider Independent 
> assignments there! So
> > I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there.
> 
> This policy is about allocations (i.e. to LIRs), not assignments (i.e.
> directly to end users).  I don't think anyone forgot 
> assignments - they're
> just outside the scope of the policy.
> 
> Nick
> 
>