[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

> On 04.08.2016 09:39, Ingrid Wijte wrote:
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> During RIPE 72, the RIPE NCC was asked to suggest a way forward with
>> regards to the unclear situation arising from address blocks in the
>> RIPE Database with the status ALLOCATED PI or ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED.
>> We want to give you an update on this work and ask for your input.
>>
>> BACKGROUND
>>
>> Although PI assignments made by LIRs have the same status in the RIPE
>> Database, it is not clear if resource holders with assignments from
>> LIRs have the same rights as resource holders with those issued by
>> the RIPE NCC. The community, mainly End Users, has asked the RIPE NCC
>> to clarify the situation.

I had all my ASSIGNED PIs changed to status:LEGACY.  If it was done to
all my legacy allocations why can't it be done for these as well?

-Hank

>>
>> In the early days of the RIPE NCC, a small number of LIRs received
>> allocations with the status ALLOCATED PI or ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED.
>> From these address blocks, LIRs could assign ranges with the status
>> ASSIGNED PI.
>> The RIPE community later decided that the RIPE NCC should be the only
>> party assigning ranges with ASSIGNED PI to End Users. It was not
>> clear what the status of the assignments that had already been made
>> should be.
>>
>> ACTION TAKEN
>>
>> At RIPE 71, the Address Policy Working Group asked the RIPE NCC to
>> check the actual assignment status with the holders of these
>> allocations. We contacted all of the LIRs involved and around 50%
>> said they had no contact with holders of assignments with the status
>> ASSIGNED PI within their allocations. Several allocations containing
>> only PA assignments were converted from ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED to
>> ALLOCATED PA following communication with LIRs.
>>
>> The RIPE NCC presented these results to the Address Policy Working
>> Group at RIPE 72. The WG stressed that data accuracy must have the
>> highest priority. It was further suggested that the RIPE NCC should
>> follow up with the LIRs on a case-by-case basis, following the
>> principles outlined below.
>>
>> The WG agreed that, where the LIR can document a mutual agreement
>> that they administer the address space, a conversion from PI to PA
>> should take place. In all other cases, assignments with the status
>> ASSIGNED PI should be treated as being assigned by the RIPE NCC.
>>
>> It was also stated that LIRs should not register any new assignments
>> with the status ASSIGNED PI, as policy no longer allows for new IPv4
>> PI assignments (with the exception of IXP PI assignments from our
>> reserved address pool).
>>
>> APPROACH
>>  
>> The RIPE NCC  will contact the 38 LIRs holding allocations that
>> contain address blocks with the status ASSIGNED PI (3,600 inetnum
>> objects in total).
>>
>> In the following months, these LIRs will check if their RIPE Database
>> entries are still correct. Each LIR will check their records and with
>> their customers to see under what conditions the assignments were
>> originally provided.
>>
>> After the LIRs have finished their research, the RIPE NCC will:
>>
>> -    Convert assignments to ASSIGNED PA if it can be documented that
>> the administrative responsibility lies with the LIR
>> -    Follow up directly with resource holders of ASSIGNED PI to apply
>> the RIPE policy, “Contractual Requirements for Provider Independent
>> Resource Holders in the RIPE NCC Service Region”. The PI assignments
>> will become part of the address space managed by the RIPE NCC just
>> like all other PI space. Once the resource holders have fulfilled the
>> contractual requirements, they will have the same rights and
>> obligations as any other End User of PI space.
>> -    Split the allocations to separate the PI assignments and convert
>> the blocks that remain with an LIR to ALLOCATED PA.
>>
>> We suggest giving these LIRs until the end of January 2017 to clarify
>> the status of the assignments within their ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
>> allocations.
>>
>> In situations where a dispute arises between the LIR and the
>> assignment holder about the administrative responsibility, the RIPE
>> NCC will do its best to support a fair solution.
>>
>> We welcome your feedback on this suggested approach. Please provide
>> your input before 12 September 2016.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Ingrid Wijte
>> Assistant Manager Registration Services
>> RIPE NCC 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160804/d8777f19/attachment.html>