[address-policy-wg] 2022-02 New Policy Proposal (Remove mandatory IPv4 PA assignment registration in the RIPE Database)

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 06, 2022 at 01:44:51PM +0200, James Kennedy wrote:
> Re: next steps ??? does the APWG see any value in exploring this topic
> further in its current or any other form?

Speaking as an individual member of the APWG: not in this form, not
with the line of arguments and justification given in this proposal.

Let's agree on a problem statement first.  "We no longer need to
ask for more v4 space" is not a very compelling one.

My take on "if the problem statement is that different LIRs fill the
RIPE DB with data of very different granularity, and this is oh so
inconsistent!" is still that this is not a problem policy changes will
solve (unless you disallow registering ANY assignments, and remove
ALL existing objects = consistency) but that might be better tackled
by a BCP document, explaining to LIRs what "the community" expects them
to do.

It will still not magically fix different mindsets - or vastly different
customer bases - between LIRs, but at least for those that *are* seeking
for guidance ("should I register individual /32s, or preferably only the
whole block, and if yes, why?") we can create some.

Gert Doering
        -- LIR admin
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20221006/fec6dda2/attachment.sig>