A thought just crossed my mind: those of you striving to deny slots in the routing tables to non-LIRs, what do you think about splitting a PA and announcing parts out of different AS'es ? This isn't really a de-aggregate, serves the 'address conservation' constraint but is utilizing routing table space. Wasn't the 'sub-allocation' type intended for this and must have had some consensus to become implemented ? Maybe there should be added a PA allocation rule that each PA has to be announced only out of one AS. No ? We can't do this ? Why not ? Be splitting PA's this way the LIR create a address space type that can be moved along very similar to PI, just without being handed out directly to the customer. Would be an idea: I split one of our PA into /24's and lend them to enterprise customers free for announcement via their favourite ISP charging a yearly fee (obvisously the fee only for administering the RIPE data, as charging for addresses isn't allowed.). Marcus ---------------------------------------------------------- Tropolys Rhein-Main GmbH Network Engineering and Administration Fon: +49-(0)6131/129343 | Fax: +49-(0)6131/129321 Mombacher Str. 40, 55122 Mainz, Germany ---------------------------------------------------------- AS15837 | AS8638 | MG3031-RIPE ---------------------------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Marcus Gerdon" <marcus.gerdon@mainz-kom.de> To: <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: a consensus, about what?