Hello Sander, I think that in that case PI should be removed. Because else it could have a big legal impact I think. Processing requests from 2 companies different by an organization that has a monopoly isn't a very smart way to work (and the risk for legal issues is very big). With kind regards, Mark Scholten -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann Sent: dinsdag 15 september 2009 11:59 To: Mark Scholten Cc: 'Leo Vegoda'; 'Michiel Klaver'; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: RE: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2 Hi Mark,
Would it be an option to have something written in the policy that means the following? The reserved /10 (or other range) from the last /8 RIPE NCC receives from IANA is to be used for PA allocations. Whenever there are no other addresses available to use for PI allocations the /10 (or part of that)(that effective are the last IPv4 addresses RIPE NCC can provide to the RIPE community at that time) can also be used for other allocations, like PI.
The problem with that is that the /10 would be used up in a *very* short time. I think we can get away (legally speaking) with not reserving any address space for separate organisations (PI), but I don't think we can get away with 'blocking the market' for new providers / LIRs (PA). Which is why I proposed to reserve space for PA initial allocations :) I could be wrong here ofcourse... Thanks, Sander