Hi Martin, I'll try to answer the points you raised below: 1. This proposal does not impact transfer at all. Addresses that get transferred are at no point in that process 'returned to the RIPE NCC'. 2. It's not explicitly defined because it all depends on the address space returned. As I already indicated in another email, the long term effect of this is likely to be that all /8s managed by the RIPE NCC will have a minimum allocation size of a /22; and if we then run out of /22s or larger and need to hand out multiple smaller blocks (moving to clause 4) a few additional /8s might get *really* unlucky. But that will only happen when we're scraping the RIPE NCC barrel. Best regards, Remco On 24-05-11 01:44, "Martin Millnert" <millnert@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi!
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
I support this proposal, provided I see satisfactory clarifications according to the below. :)
1) I note that the proposal specifically does not address transfers between entities under contract with the RIPE NCC. Am I correct in concluding the above and following? That this proposal does not affect or impede the transfer of an IPv4 resource from entity X to Y, while keeping the RIPE registry accurate, in any way? This is a strong and vital function of RIPE NCC's registry function as we go into the darkness IMO. I.e.., that this only addresses resource holders who specifically chooses to return resources to the RIPE NCC without any other party involved? While I cannot support a policy proposal which would damage the RIPE NCC registry in such a way, I don't think this is the intention, but I'd like to make it dead certain!
2) I'd also like a clarification regarding clause 3b: "b. Minimum allocation sizes for the relevant /8 blocks will be updated if necessary."
Updated to what? It is not explicitly defined. Is this intentional or not?
I see two ways to read this: a) The policy proposal intends to declare that address blocks returned to RIPE that are to be handed out according to LIR's without such an assignment according to clause 1 (in other words, assignments by way of clause 3a), shall have the same fixed assignment size as those in clause 1, i.e. that of a /22. b) The policy proposal intends to declare that the fixed assignment size, /22, in clause 1 can "be updated if necessary", i.e be changed to something else, likely/presumably longer?
Either is fine with me, but I think it's a bit too ambiguous right now.
Thank you, Regards, Martin
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.