[hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal / reservation revisited?

Hi,

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:21:56PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>   To me, this rather sounds like a case for revisiting reservation, 
>   rather than arguing for a new registry type/structure/rules.

It's similar, but "reservation" is not what I have in mind.

>   Am I missing something?

Yes - multi-level structures.

"Reservation" is:

  - I give this /24 to that company, even if they only need a /27 today,
    because they might need it in a couple of years.

"Multi-Level Structure" is:

 - I give this /22 (or whatever) to that reseller of mine.  He is going
   to distribute this /22 to his customers, filling in proper RIPE-141s
   for each subnet, following all the RIPE policies & procedures, and
   documenting each assignment in the RIPE database.

   This is along the lines of "ALLOCATED PA" - I have the address space,
   but MUST NOT use it, before it has been turned (piece by piece) into
   "ASSIGNED PA".

Stephen's proposal (MIR) means "make a level between RIR and LIR that
gets space from the RIR, can do ALLOCATED PA to (its) LIRs, and has to 
be a separate organization".  

My proposal is less formally structured, but boils down to about the same
thing - permit multiple levels of "ALLOCATED PA".  But in the final step,
the address space must be ASSIGNED PA, according to the normal rules, 
which means "no reservation".

I see a big difference :-) but maybe it's just me...?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299