[address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Thu Oct 10 14:36:54 CEST 2013
On 10/10/2013 11:57, Andrea Cima wrote: > 1) Allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA > allocations (if equal or larger than the minimum allocation size) > 2) Do not allow LIRs to change the status of their PI assignments into PA allocations Andrea, On May 7 2009, Alex le Heux posted a breakdown of IPv4 PI assignment statistics: > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2009-May/004212.html This indicated at at the time, only ~20% of all ipv4 PI assignments were /22 or larger. The two choices presented here mean that the 80% of people with PI assignments of /23 or less would be disenfranchised by this policy regardless of which way it might go. Also it's not compatible with the efforts under way to unify pi/pa ipv6. I.e. I don't think that either of these options is necessarily a good idea. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]