[address-policy-wg] IPv4 PA assignments policy change draft proposal

Hi,

> I am not convinced why adding a special-case "may" for "LIR to itself"
> while keeping the "must" for "LIR to others" would be a good idea of any
> sorts.

I believe this relates to the DBTF recommendation - "if a resource
holder wants to sub-allocate or partition part of their IPv4 resources
to another entity, the task force strongly recommends documenting this
sub-allocation or assignment in the RIPE Database."

The DBTF didn't identify a need to change the policy for LIRs
registering/documenting blocks of PA that they issue to third parties
in the RIPE Database. But we did see the need to change the policy for
LIR Infrastructure PA Assignments - some LIRs flood the Database with
huge volumes of very small infrastructure PA Assignments that would be
extremely difficult to keep up-to-date, and the TF recommends
"limiting and discouraging the use of the RIPE Database as an
enterprise IPAM solution".

Regards,
James
(DBTF hat on)

On Sun, May 15, 2022 at 10:36 AM Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>
> * Gert Doering
>
> > I am not convinced why adding a special-case "may" for "LIR to itself"
> > while keeping the "must" for "LIR to others" would be a good idea of any
> > sorts.
>
> Maybe a compromise would be to add a «LIR to many others [with
> identical contact info]» type of database entry, analogous to the
> AGGREGATED-BY-LIR inet6num status.
>
> Tore
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://mailman.ripe.net/