Changing the Status of PI Address Space
Hi everyone, I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens. The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR has been stopped and I would like to restart it. My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs. By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly recorded in the registry/RIPE Database. By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented. Therefore, I'm curious: - should we restart the discussion? - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min /22) - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement? Kind regards, Elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Elvis, all - this is being worked on as we speak. A little more patience, please - if I may ask. I am confident - at least I hope - that something presentable will be ready for the upcoming RIPE meeting in Warsaw. Best regards, -C. On 04.03.2014 01:25, Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to restart the discussion that was taking place on the mailing list before the RIPE Meeting in Athens.
The discussion happened on the mailing list and in Athens and moved to a discussion on whether we should permit PI transfers through policy -> I understand that Erik Bais is working on a policy proposal that would include PI transfers. However, the discussion on ASSIGNED PI to ALLOCATED PA status change for address space given and used by the LIR has been stopped and I would like to restart it.
My opinion is that I don't think a policy is needed for these changes to be performed by the RIPE NCC at the request of the LIR. Changes from ALLOCATED PI to ALLOCATED PA have been done in the past; plus - Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs.
By keeping the artificial limit of PI used by LIRs the registry is suffering as any assignments made within that PI block are not properly recorded in the registry/RIPE Database.
By looking back at the feedback received from lots of people in the community (and I counted at least 20 people responding to Andrea's e-mail) I have the feeling that this should have been already implemented.
Therefore, I'm curious: - should we restart the discussion? - was the minimum limit of the prefix size the only reason why it hasn't yet been implemented? (some were saying any prefix, some were saying min /22) - or was it already implemented and I missed the announcement?
Kind regards, Elvis
Elvis Daniel Velea
Chief Business Analyst
Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914
Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in:
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
* Elvis Daniel Velea
Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs.
Small correction here, I only noted that there exist some ALLOCATED PA in the database that are smaller than the minimum allocation size. I do not know how that came to be, so I don't know if they were ASSIGNED PI before. My point was that the minimum allocation size doesn't appear to be a hard limit on what is the minimum ALLOCATED PA object that is allowed to exist in the registry; but rather it should be considered the minimum allocation size the RIPE NCC is willing to issue[1] new at any given time. A PI->PA conversion isn't a "new issue" in that way, hence there's no real reason to apply the minimum allocation size, IMHO. As those mini-assignments are already in the registry, it doesn't hurt aggregation either. In any case, it would appear to me that the community is simply waiting for someone (perhaps you and/or Erik?) to care enough to actually submit a formal policy proposal to allow for such conversions. The NCC indicated that they felt clear policy was needed. [1] This is irrelevant today in any case: min-size == max-size == /22. Tore
* Elvis Daniel Velea
Tore has also pointed out some precedent where ASSIGNED PIs have been changed to ALLOCATED PAs. Small correction here, I only noted that there exist some ALLOCATED PA in the database that are smaller than the minimum allocation size. I do not know how that came to be, so I don't know if they were ASSIGNED PI before.
Hi Tore, On 04/03/14 13:16, Tore Anderson wrote: thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that you had remarked PI to PA conversions. I've only now checked the history of the blocks you have mentioned and these have always been ALLOCATED PA (with an allocation size lower than the minimum).
My point was that the minimum allocation size doesn't appear to be a hard limit on what is the minimum ALLOCATED PA object that is allowed to exist in the registry; but rather it should be considered the minimum allocation size the RIPE NCC is willing to issue[1] new at any given time. A PI->PA conversion isn't a "new issue" in that way, hence there's no real reason to apply the minimum allocation size, IMHO. As those mini-assignments are already in the registry, it doesn't hurt aggregation either.
I understand and agree with you. However, let's not forget that the RIPE NCC has made in the past PI assignments of even a /29.
In any case, it would appear to me that the community is simply waiting for someone (perhaps you and/or Erik?) to care enough to actually submit a formal policy proposal to allow for such conversions. The NCC indicated that they felt clear policy was needed. I see. I was under a different impression, that the community was waiting for a policy proposal from Erik which would enable PI transfers.
Erik, are you working on a proposal that would (also) enable status changes? Do you need help with it? cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
Hi Elvis & Tore, In any case, it would appear to me that the community is simply waiting for someone (perhaps you and/or Erik?) to care enough to actually submit a formal policy proposal to allow for such conversions. The NCC indicated that they felt clear policy was needed. I see. I was under a different impression, that the community was waiting for a policy proposal from Erik which would enable PI transfers. Erik, are you working on a proposal that would (also) enable status changes? Do you need help with it? The policy that I’m working on currently is the one to enable PI transfers. I was under the impression that there was enough support for the LIR Infrastructure PI to PA change that there wasn’t additional policy needed after the discussion in Athens. Regards, Erik Bais
Hi Erik, On 19/03/14 18:17, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Elvis & Tore,
[...]
I was under the impression that there was enough support for the LIR Infrastructure PI to PA change that there wasn’t additional policy needed after the discussion in Athens.
Maybe someone from the NCC can tell us if they are waiting for the community to make a policy proposal or whether they are implementing/accepting PI to PA conversions for PI registered as LIR infrastructure.
Regards,
Erik Bais
Kind regards, Elvis
Hi Elvis, On 19/3/14 5:55 PM, Elvis Velea wrote:
Hi Erik,
On 19/03/14 18:17, Erik Bais wrote:
Hi Elvis & Tore,
[...]
I was under the impression that there was enough support for the LIR Infrastructure PI to PA change that there wasn’t additional policy needed after the discussion in Athens.
Maybe someone from the NCC can tell us if they are waiting for the community to make a policy proposal or whether they are implementing/accepting PI to PA conversions for PI registered as LIR infrastructure.
Indeed there is no need for a policy proposal in order to allow for a status change from 'ASSIGNED PI' to 'ALLOCATED PA'. This will apply to IP blocks equal or larger than the minimum allocation size and assigned to an LIR's infrastructure. The procedure is being finalised and I am confident it will be published and announced next week. I hope this clarifies. Regards, Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
Regards,
Erik Bais
Kind regards, Elvis
Hi Andrea, On 20/03/14 15:51, Andrea Cima wrote:
Hi Elvis,
[...]
Maybe someone from the NCC can tell us if they are waiting for the community to make a policy proposal or whether they are implementing/accepting PI to PA conversions for PI registered as LIR infrastructure.
Indeed there is no need for a policy proposal in order to allow for a status change from 'ASSIGNED PI' to 'ALLOCATED PA'. This will apply to IP blocks equal or larger than the minimum allocation size and assigned to an LIR's infrastructure. The procedure is being finalised and I am confident it will be published and announced next week.
thank you for clarifying the situation. Looking forward to the announcement :-)
I hope this clarifies.
It does. I feel that I am the only one that was confused and anxious to hear something :-)
Regards,
Andrea Cima RIPE NCC
Kind regards, Elvis
Hi, On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:17:57PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
I was under the impression that there was enough support for the LIR Infrastructure PI to PA change that there wasn?t additional policy needed after the discussion in Athens.
Right. What I understood was that the NCC is having second thoughts here regarding minimum allocation size, and is waiting for the policy proposal to get rid of the formal minimum allocation size before going forward with the PI-to-PA-change. So for the change itself, no extra policy is needed. Gert -- 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
All, On 19.03.2014 19:20, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 04:17:57PM +0000, Erik Bais wrote:
I was under the impression that there was enough support for the LIR Infrastructure PI to PA change that there wasn?t additional policy needed after the discussion in Athens.
Right. What I understood was that the NCC is having second thoughts here regarding minimum allocation size, and is waiting for the policy proposal to get rid of the formal minimum allocation size before going forward with the PI-to-PA-change. So for the change itself, no extra policy is needed.
the proposal has been handed to the NCC earlier this week and is currently in the making of getting ready for publication. Best, -C.
participants (7)
-
Andrea Cima -
Carsten Schiefner -
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Elvis Velea -
Erik Bais -
Gert Doering -
Tore Anderson