clarification on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (ripe-682) Section 2.0
Hi All https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-rip... I saw this restriction: """ Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. Provider Independent resources may be transferred to: * A RIPE NCC member; or * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member in accordance with the RIPE Policy, """ Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI). Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the existing PI rules be welcome? -peter
PA addressing is always bound to being an LIR, so I would say this is both intentional and desired. Ian -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Peter Hessler Sent: 23 May 2017 13:10 To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: [address-policy-wg] clarification on RIPE Resource Transfer Policies (ripe-682) Section 2.0 Hi All https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-rip... I saw this restriction: """ Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. Provider Independent resources may be transferred to: * A RIPE NCC member; or * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member in accordance with the RIPE Policy, """ Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI). Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the existing PI rules be welcome? -peter Information in this email including any attachments may be privileged, confidential and is intended exclusively for the addressee. The views expressed may not be official policy, but the personal views of the originator. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete it from your system. You should not reproduce, distribute, store, retransmit, use or disclose its contents to anyone. Please note we reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communication through our internal and external networks. SKY and the SKY marks are trademarks of Sky plc and Sky International AG and are used under licence. Sky UK Limited (Registration No. 2906991), Sky-In-Home Service Limited (Registration No. 2067075) and Sky Subscribers Services Limited (Registration No. 2340150) are direct or indirect subsidiaries of Sky plc (Registration No. 2247735). All of the companies mentioned in this paragraph are incorporated in England and Wales and share the same registered office at Grant Way, Isleworth, Middlesex TW7 5QD.
Hi, On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 02:10:06PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote:
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-rip...
I saw this restriction:
""" Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. Provider Independent resources may be transferred to:
* A RIPE NCC member; or * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member in accordance with the RIPE Policy, """
Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI).
Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the existing PI rules be welcome?
This split is intentional - a PA holder can only be a LIR, while a PI can be held by a LIR or by a non-LIR end user, provided they have a contractual relationship with a LIR. So unless we change the whole model of "who can hold which address space" (and abandon the PA/PI distinction while at it) the transfer policy document just reflects what address policy always required for the initial holder of a given "bag of numbers". Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On 2017 May 23 (Tue) at 14:35:01 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 02:10:06PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: :> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-rip... :> :> I saw this restriction: :> :> """ :> Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. :> Provider Independent resources may be transferred to: :> :> * A RIPE NCC member; or :> * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member :> in accordance with the RIPE Policy, :> """ :> :> Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI). :> :> Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the :> existing PI rules be welcome? : :This split is intentional - a PA holder can only be a LIR, while a PI :can be held by a LIR or by a non-LIR end user, provided they have a :contractual relationship with a LIR. : :So unless we change the whole model of "who can hold which address space" :(and abandon the PA/PI distinction while at it) the transfer policy :document just reflects what address policy always required for the :initial holder of a given "bag of numbers". : :Gert Doering : -- NetMaster :-- :have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? : :SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard :Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann :D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) :Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279 Right now I don't feel like trying to change the whole model, so the policy makes sense as it is. Thanks! -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it?
participants (3)
-
Dickinson, Ian -
Gert Doering -
Peter Hessler