Address Policy Working Group,

I’m working for a company who decided to become a LIR as we have a requirement for Large amounts of IP Space. We are not assigning IP Space to our customers as all the IP Space is used for our own infrastructure.

We have been provided with a PA Allocation, however we are having issues getting PA Assignments approved by RIPE NCC.

We applied for PA Assignments in /24 blocks so that we could multi-home using BGP from all of our production sites and some of our more critical offices

These sites don’t have a shared Network connecting them (except for the Internet)

We are using the “allowas-in” command so that we don’t need an AS Number from each non-connected site. (As the RIPE NCC wouldn’t approve our application for multiple AS Numbers)

The request of PA Assignments is getting rejected because

1. We can’t aggregate the IP Space (RIPE NCC wants us to advertise our entire PA Space and not break it into smaller networks as we require)

2. The IP Space required in some of the sites is less than a /24 (However we need /24 networks as our Transit providers filter IP Space smaller than /24)

The suggestion from RIPE NCC was to apply for smaller Assignments from the PA Space and to take each of them from a separate /24 range, and to create a /24 route object for each separate /24 Space, or to apply for PI Space for each location as PI Space was more in-line with what we are trying to achieve.

While this will work, I have an issue with RIPE NCC providing a work around, and I believe the policy should allow for a LIR to use the PA Allocation in the best manner to conserve IP Space and to not have “Available” networks in PA Space which can never be assigned and to not waste PI space by not allowing a LIR use the Allocated PA Space for its own Infrastructure.

Thanks

Keith

Keith Nolan

Director of Network and IT Operations, EMEA

Premiere Global Services

Tel: +353 (0) 23 88 32103

Mob: +353 (0) 86 919 8149  

Fax: +353 (0) 23 88 36101