Dear colleagues,
We are reviewing IPv4 status hierarchies in the RIPE Database (looking at objects with the same status as their less-specifics).
Some cases are clear - "ASSIGNED PA" shouldn't be allowed under "ASSIGNED PA", for example. Other statuses might need a closer look and we would like guidance from this working group.
The RIPE Database does not currently have any limitations on creating inetnums that have the status "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" under inetnums with the same status. This often results in chains of inetnums that have the same status, sometimes ending with the sub-allocation of a single IP address.
Although this might not seem useful at first glance, there might be practical uses for a few levels of sub-allocation. For example, a global company could give sub-allocations to its national branches, which make smaller sub-allocations to their multiple daughter companies. These daughter companies could then create and maintain assignments for their actual networks.
However, this is not allowed under a strict reading of the policy, as only the LIR itself can make sub-allocations, and these must be used for assignments.
Section 5.3 "Sub-allocations" of the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies (ripe-733) states:
"Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation and can only be made from allocations with a status of "ALLOCATED PA".
[...]
LIRs may make sub-allocations to multiple downstream network operators."
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#54
Before making any changes, we want to be sure that we understand the intent of the policy and what the community wants us to do. Thus, we would like to hear from the Address Policy Working Group:
- Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another?
- Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation?
- Do we need a policy update?
We look forward to your guidance.
Kind regards,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
