[address-policy-wg] Guidance Requested: Changing the Status of PI Address Space

Hi,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 09:10:55AM +0000, Sonderegger Olaf ABRAXAS INFORMATIK AG wrote:
> My question is: Why RIPE NCC should go one step back instead one step forward?
> 
> I remember an idea to remove status "Provider Aggregatable" (PA) and "Provider Independent" (PI) for IPv6 addresses [see Ref 1 / Ref 2]. If we go ahead with this idea and open it for any kind of IP address, than final result is the same as current guidance request.

To change this would require a policy proposal that would change these
bits of the IPv4 address policy, and go through the PDP process, and 
that's a somewhat major undertaking.

Permitting relabeling of PI into PA space is "low effort", as it is not
actually covered by policy today - so if the community says "we see no 
problem with that, let's do it" the NCC can go ahead without a formal 
process.

(The current policy neither permits nor forbids the NCC to do so, so the 
guidance requested from the community is "what should the NCC do here, 
with no clear rules set by policy?" - and I think we have fairly clear 
guidance so far.  I'll wait a few more days and then summarize the
feedback received).

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 306 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130626/700f089a/attachment.sig>