Returning to the initial discussion ... Ingrid Wijte wrote:
The WG agreed that, where the LIR can document a mutual agreement that they administer the address space, a conversion from PI to PA should take place. In all other cases, assignments with the status ASSIGNED PI should be treated as being assigned by the RIPE NCC.
It reads like this is already written in stone ... is it ??? If this would be the case, the only way to achieve this (to have PIs out of A-PI/-U to be treated as all other PIs, give their holders the same rights, "safety" and obligations) is - to split up the A-PI/-U as you proposed or - move all PIs out of the A-PI/-U (or convert them to PA and move some PIs) => renumbering PI holder, address space win for LIR or - have the LIR even return the full A-PI/-U (and if wanted get back a same sized PA) => renumbering LIR, "loss" of A-PI/-U (which brings up again the question, if assigning "new" PIs out of A-PI/-U would be really against currently policy) Did I miss anything? Even if the object could be locked within the RIPE DB, contractual everything could be secured and e.g. RDNS is fixed as well: the PI as being a more specific within LIR's A-PI/-U and the issues arising of this could probably never be solved within other ways (or it's too early). If things suddenly don't work out any more like they did the last 15++ years and the consensus is to have it "solved", it's the question what is the best approach, what does it mean, what are the drawbacks, is it worth taking multiple approaches and who at the end pays the bill. Markus -- Darmstädter Landstrasse 184 | 60598 Frankfurt | Germany +49 (0)178 5352346 | <Markus.Weber@kpn.DE> | www.kpn.de KPN EuroRings Germany B.V. | Niederlassung Frankfurt am Main Amtsgericht Frankfurt HRB99781 | USt.IdNr. DE 815496855 Geschäftsführer Jesus Martinez & Jacob Leendert Hage