Nick, although assignments might be out of scope here, but Max isn't strolling that far taking his thought logically. Is there a limitation on the size of a PI assignment in place at some time in any one of the lately changed policies? Without digging for any actual numbers out of daily business I'd say there's quite a number of assignments exceeding initial alloctions - and easily exceeding the proposed limit of /22 per LIR. Let me walk a bit further along Max' comment. As soon as I got that last /22 allocation which policy keeps me from requesting a /19 PI for our own use? As far as I remember (at least in v4-world) LIRs aren't excluded from PI policies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according current practice moving all our dynamic DSL-pools into PI space would be quite valid as each customer only get's a single address with the sole purpose being the connection to our network (mirroring hosting/housing to circuit business). In addition as a LIR I might come to think of issues with equality in business when running into problems after having used up that last /22 and noticing that ISP running their business on PI space are able to further request addtional IP space. regards, Marcus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Engineering IP Services Versatel West GmbH Unterste-Wilms-Strasse 29 D-44143 Dortmund Fon: +49-(0)231-399-4486 | Fax: +49-(0)231-399-4491 marcus.gerdon@versatel.de | www.versatel.de Sitz der Gesellschaft: Dortmund | Registergericht: Dortmund HRB 21738 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Hai Cheng, Joachim Bellinghoven ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AS8881 / AS8638 / AS13270 / AS29610 | MG3031-RIPE -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Nick Hilliard Gesendet: Mittwoch, 16. Juni 2010 22:00 An: address-policy-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Policy Proposal (Allocations from the last /8)

On 16/06/2010 19:37, Max Tulyev wrote:

...

I think, the policy is fair.

But you completely forget the Provider Independent assignments there! So I vote for changing "LIRs" to "Companies" there.

This policy is about allocations (i.e. to LIRs), not assignments (i.e. directly to end users). I don't think anyone forgot assignments - they're just outside the scope of the policy.

Nick