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

Once again since it seems not to have gone through...


-----Original Message-----
From: Chapuis André, INI-ON-EPC-IPE 
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 3:15 PM
To: 'l.yurkina at ripn.net' <l.yurkina at ripn.net>; Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Hi Everybody,
I agree with Larisa.

As a LIR 'responsible for ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks, the amount of work to change all that would be huge compared to the gain.
Back in 2002, I did a review of these blocks and managed to get a good number of assignments back, that we re-used as ASSIGNED PA. It also allowed us to update the real PI records. But this was quite a time-intensive exercise I'd prefer not to do again. 
Furthermore, knowing that our allocations are full to 90%, there's not much room for 'misuse' the PI policy (which actually does not apply in this case!) by assigning PI ourselves -> so benefit is quite inexistent

Regards,
André


-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Larisa Yurkina
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2016 1:40 PM
To: Randy Bush <randy at psg.com>
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED

Randy Bush пишет 04.08.2016 14:12:
>> My LIR have got ALLOCATED PI and ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED blocks about
>> 20 years ago, according to those days policy. Some part of address 
>> space was not aggregated and was used as "ASSIGNED PI within 
>> ALLOCATED PI", all of them have agreement with the LIR, which also 
>> was within the policy, at least not against. Why should we change 
>> anything here? Just because some LIRs lost their control over 50% of 
>> the address space allocated to them? Perhaps there are some other ways to restore it?
>>
>>>> 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.
> i am perennially confused by the different colors of integers.  as you 
> know, i prefer magenta and comic sans.
>
> ingrid/ncc can you explain in terms an antique router geek can 
> understand what the actual pragmatic effect would be on these PI/PA 
> holders?  does it alter holders' rights?  costs?  processes? ...
>
> i suspect that you, larisa, already understand that.  in this case, 
> why, in pragmatic terms a router geek can understand (yes, i know 
> that's a high bar, sorry), do you not like it?
>
> randy
Hi Randy,
1. Manual update inetnums from ASSIGNED PI into ASSIGNED PA in two /16 blocks creates a lot of additional job for my LIR.
2. Lack of reasonable explanations for customers why this should be done.

That is why I'd prefer not to change anything here.

--
With respect,

*Larisa Yurkina*
RIPN
Internet Number Resources Group / Chief Manager l.yurkina at ripn.net <mailto:l.yurkina at ripn.net> / www.ripn.net <http://www.ripn.net>
Т.: +7 495 737-0604


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5540 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160805/a7522211/attachment.p7s>