[address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Stefan Schiele
st at sct.de
Mon Aug 22 10:11:48 CEST 2016
Dear all, I also support RIPE NCC's initiative for dealing with those ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED assignments. By the way, our company holds one of these PIs in KPN's /16. And as far as we are concerned an annual fee of 50 EUR would be okay, too. Kind Regards Stefan Schiele Am 18.08.2016 um 11:36 schrieb herve.clement at orange.com: > > Dear all, > > From my point of view I support this initiative of the RIPE NCC as it > brings more clarity and simplicity regarding IPv4 resources management. > > Hervé Clément > > Orange > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] De > la part de Ingrid Wijte > Envoyé : vendredi 5 août 2016 15:41 > À : Gert Doering; Randy Bush > Cc : Larisa Yurkina; address-policy-wg at ripe.net > Objet : Re: [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED > > Dear colleagues, > > >>> Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was > > >>> originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller > > >>> fragments in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - > > >>> so the /14 won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics. > > >> lemme see if i get this. to have the owner registration correct, > > >> some address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple > > >> IRs, thus fragmenting routing? i like correct registration, but the > > >> commons has become pretty polluted. > > The main issue that we (the WG and the RIPE NCC) are trying to resolve > is the lack of clarity around the status and rights of these > assignments. It’s not necessarily the case that the End User > registration is incorrect. In many cases LIRs have put a lot of effort > into keeping this information up to date. > > If there is a /16 “ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED” block that contains "real" > Provider Independent assignments, that /16 would indeed be split in > order to carve out that assignment. The LIR would end up with multiple > PA allocations instead of one /16. The PI resource holder would be > able to decide who their sponsoring LIR should be. It is possible that > they would remain with that same LIR, or they could move to another > sponsoring LIR and take their PI assignment with them. If the resource > holder is an LIR themselves, the PI assignment could be registered > under their own LIR account. > > This means that route and domain objects would need to be updated. > It’s also relevant to mention that several LIRs already allow for more > specific routes for the assignments. > > The LIRs will be able to request a new ROA for their remaining blocks. > The sponsoring LIR can request a ROA on behalf of the PI resource > holder, or the PI holder can do that themselves if they wish. > > I hope this answers your questions. > > Ingrid Wijte > > RIPE NCC > > > I leave the definite answer to Ingrid to answer. > > > > > > My understanding of "normal" NCC<->LIR stockkeeping is that PI is > > > never living inside blocks that "belong" to a given LIR. So, the LIR > > > would never be able to get a ROA covering PI space. > > > > > > For some of these "old" blocks, there is a /16 which covers regular > > > LIR/PA space, and "not real PI" space, and the LIR can get a ROA that > > > covers their PA space, and also these "not real PI" blocks (because > > > according to the NCC records, the /16 "belongs" to the LIR). > > > > > > From an aggregation PoV, this is ok-ish - but from a routing security > > > PoV, I wonder if that's what we want (the "not real PI" block might be > > > routed totally elsewhere now). > > > > > > > > >>> So, to answer your question: for those "swampy PI", it would alter > > >>> their rights (contracts according to 2007-01), costs (50 EUR/year) > > >> whoops. that's gonna cause unhappiness. > > > Dunno. We (the RIPE community and the NCC) rolled out 2007-01 to all > > > the other PI holders, and the amount of unhappiness was not very big. > > > > > > Those cases that I was involved with my "LIR admin-c" hat on, PI > > > holders seemed to be happy to have a clear contract with a known > > > entity (us), and the assurance that this would ensure that nobody else > > > could make claims to their address space. > > > > > > Gert Doering > > > -- assorted hats > > _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160822/53ed5d8a/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Update on ALLOCATED PI/UNSPECIFIED
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]