- address-policy-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Re: [address-policy-wg] Summary of the PI Task Force's recent discussions
by Joao Luis Silva Damas 11 Aug '03

11 Aug '03

Gert, On Monday, August 11, 2003, at 11:50 AM, Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 11:48:28AM +0200, Joao Luis Silva Damas wrote: >> I have one question, trying to understand the main goal of the >> exercise: >> >> * Is the aim of the a new PI policy to adjust the policy to the >> requests and needs of the industry or is it a way of getting a >> "special >> allocation" policy by another name? > > My aim is to adjust the policy (actually both PA and PI policy) to > match > observed need. > That is good. > People are requesting *multiple* PI blocks because they can't get a PA > allocation, and that seems to be just wrong to me. > Just to spell it out clearly: - Is it people who do not meet the minimum allocation size for PA? I guess these ones would ask for a single PI assignment? - Is it people who find it to be so much hassle to get an allocation that they end up requesting multiple PI blocks with the same amount of addresses? - People who have multiple sites and if they get a normal PA block will need to split it and end up with a bunch of non-routable sites? Other? Just trying to understand. One last thing. There is something that makes it unusually attractive to have PI space: it usually comes from "old" blocks (192/8, 193-195/8) where you don't have to bother with anyone filtering you if you have at least a /24 (damn easy to justify). Joao

1 0

Updated 'RIR Comparative Policy Overview' - Version 2.1
by leo vegoda 07 Aug '03

07 Aug '03

Dear Colleagues, Version 2.0 of the 'RIR Comparative Policy Overview', found at: <http://www.ripe.net/rs/rir-comp-matrix-rev.html> has been updated to correct an error in the information for LACNIC in Section 2.4.1. "Assignments by RIRs (Independent/Portable)" To be eligible for an independent/portable assignment from LACNIC, the corrected text now reads: "Show need for at least a /21, based on demonstrated need, according to the criteria listed above." the old text read: "Need to be multihomed and show need for at least a /21. Based on demonstrated need, according to the criteria listed above." Please accept our apologies for any confusion or inconvenience caused. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0

Re: [Fwd: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46]
by leo vegoda 07 Aug '03

07 Aug '03

Hi, Shane Kerr <shane(a)ripe.net> wrote: >Did we want "status:" added? It sort of comes under the policy as it is specified there, too. Regards, -leo >-----Original message----- >Subject: [address-policy-wg] Draft agenda Address Policy Working Group RIPE 46 >To: address-policy-wg(a)ripe.net >From: Hans Petter Holen <hpholen(a)tiscali.no> >Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 01:39:45 -0100 > >Dear WG; > >Here are some items for a draft agenda, please send me comments as soon as >possible; > > >- wg-charter >- policy process >- PI policy >- initial IPv4 allocation size >- RIR- IANA relationship and procedures >- RIPE-152 Charging by local registries >- Final revised IPv4 policy > > > >-----End of original message from Hans Petter Holen----- -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

1 0