[address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Tue Mar 4 09:30:27 CET 2014
Elvis, all - this is being worked on as we speak. A little more patience, please - if I may ask. I am confident - at least I hope - that something presentable will be ready for the upcoming RIPE meeting in Warsaw. Best regards, -C. On 04.03.2014 01:25, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing > list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens. > > The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a > discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I > understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would > include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to > ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR > has been stopped and I would like to restart it. > > My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to > be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from > ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has > also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to > ALLOCATED PAs. > > By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is > suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly > recorded in the registry/RIPE Database. > > By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the > community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's > e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented. > > Therefore, I'm curious: > - should we restart the discussion? > - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't > yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min > /22) > - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement? > > Kind regards, > Elvis > > -- > <http://v4escrow.net> > > > Elvis Daniel Velea > > > Chief Business Analyst > > Email: elvis at V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis at v4escrow.net> > US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 > EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 > > Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: > > This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain > privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have > received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and > delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]