[AFRINIC-rpd] IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment proposal

[Sunday Folayan]

Hello SM,

On 24/01/2013 17:42, sm+afrinic at elandsys.com wrote:
> Hi Sunday,
> At 04:59 24-01-2013, Sunday Folayan wrote:
>>> That is the current status quo, under SM's policy this changes, 
>>> requests for
>>> PI space will be directed through an LIR... and this is one of the 
>>> MAJOR
>>> points of concern I have with the new policy
>>
>> SM, why do you want it that way? what additional value add is envisaged?
>
> There are several existing policies and there is this proposal. If the 
> proposal is accepted it will change  AFPUB-2005-v4-001.  If people can 
> get PI address space directly through the LIR under existing policies 
> they will still be able to get PI address space if the proposal is 
> accepted.

ok

>
> The proposal cannot direct all requests for PI space through LIRs 
> unless it changes several existing IPv4 address related policies. 
> That's not the case.

ok

>
> Section 2.10 of the proposal (removed in my edited copy) mentioned that:
>
>   2.10 Provider Independent IP Address Space
>
>   Provider Independent (or portable) IP address space cannot be 
> aggregated
>   and can only be assigned by a RIR through an LIR.  Provider 
> Independent (PI)
>   IP address space is expensive to route and might not be globally 
> routable.
>   Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of IP address space by 
> the
>   end user or LIR.
>
> Here's what is in Section 5.8 of AFPUB-2005-v4-001:
>
>   "PI (or portable) space cannot be aggregated and can only be 
> assigned by RIR
>    through an LIR.  PI space is expensive to route and might not be 
> globally
>    routable.  Sub-allocations cannot be made from this type of address 
> space by
>    the end user or LIR."
>
> My reading is that the text from Section 2.10 and Section 5.8 (the 
> 2005 document) are identical.  Taken together with all existing 
> policies, the text could be read as PI space can only be received 
> through a LIR.  However, that's not the case or else nobody would have 
> been able to receive PI space under AFPUB-2006-GEN-001.

Perhaps the hostmasters can shed some light here. Note that I prefer 
what is simpler - allowing direct PI allocation instead of forcing it 
through LIRs. ok, if deleted in your proposal.

> It is strange that since 2005 nobody has mentioned that this is a 
> problem.

Someone needs to be bitten before it is considered a bug ;)

Sunday.