Hi, On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:21:56PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
To me, this rather sounds like a case for revisiting reservation, rather than arguing for a new registry type/structure/rules.
It's similar, but "reservation" is not what I have in mind.
Am I missing something?
Yes - multi-level structures. "Reservation" is: - I give this /24 to that company, even if they only need a /27 today, because they might need it in a couple of years. "Multi-Level Structure" is: - I give this /22 (or whatever) to that reseller of mine. He is going to distribute this /22 to his customers, filling in proper RIPE-141s for each subnet, following all the RIPE policies & procedures, and documenting each assignment in the RIPE database. This is along the lines of "ALLOCATED PA" - I have the address space, but MUST NOT use it, before it has been turned (piece by piece) into "ASSIGNED PA". Stephen's proposal (MIR) means "make a level between RIR and LIR that gets space from the RIR, can do ALLOCATED PA to (its) LIRs, and has to be a separate organization". My proposal is less formally structured, but boils down to about the same thing - permit multiple levels of "ALLOCATED PA". But in the final step, the address space must be ASSIGNED PA, according to the normal rules, which means "no reservation". I see a big difference :-) but maybe it's just me...? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299