Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question: The company I work for is about to split off one of its country operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to check with the great and the good to see what opinion is. Nigel
Hi Nigel, As far as I understand from the policy, you can transfer a block that contains customer assignments. The size of the block that you would transfer can not be (currently) smaller than a /22. So, I would say that you have two options: - first - where you use the transfer policy and transfer parts of an allocation to an other LIR (even if it's yours, in a different country). In this case, the IPs transferred can not be again transferred for two years to an other LIR. - second - where you sell to a separate company (parts of) your infrastructure (and maybe associated customers) and then you would use the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure. In this case, the transfer policy would not be used and the IPs transferred to the new company could then be again transferred using the transfer policy. cheers, elvis On 25/03/14 19:25, Nigel Titley wrote:
Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question:
The company I work for is about to split off one of its country operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to check with the great and the good to see what opinion is.
Nigel
-- <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.
...and, depending on what the distribution of customer assignments across the overall address space looks like, you may be able to use the suballocation mechanism. Admittedly, I have never used that or did any in-depth analysis of the possibilities. Just a hint to maybe also look at. I may be fully off-track, too. Regards, Wilfried. Elvis Daniel Velea wrote:
Hi Nigel,
As far as I understand from the policy, you can transfer a block that contains customer assignments. The size of the block that you would transfer can not be (currently) smaller than a /22.
So, I would say that you have two options: - first - where you use the transfer policy and transfer parts of an allocation to an other LIR (even if it's yours, in a different country). In this case, the IPs transferred can not be again transferred for two years to an other LIR. - second - where you sell to a separate company (parts of) your infrastructure (and maybe associated customers) and then you would use the Mergers and Acquisitions procedure. In this case, the transfer policy would not be used and the IPs transferred to the new company could then be again transferred using the transfer policy.
cheers, elvis
On 25/03/14 19:25, Nigel Titley wrote:
Anyone care to cast an opinion on the following question:
The company I work for is about to split off one of its country operations into a separate company. There are various blocks in use from various allocations to the parent company. Is it permissible to split a PA block and transfer part of it to the new company in order to avoid having to renumber the customers? My reading of the transfer policy is that it is possible (if reprehensible), but I thought I'd just like to check with the great and the good to see what opinion is.
Nigel
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.
* Wilfried Woeber
...and, depending on what the distribution of customer assignments across the overall address space looks like, you may be able to use the suballocation mechanism.
Admittedly, I have never used that or did any in-depth analysis of the possibilities. Just a hint to maybe also look at. I may be fully off-track, too.
I think both you and Elvis are spot-on. There are even more options than the three already mentioned... 4) If the assignments in question are made to the new spun off company's own infrastructure (which may include separate end-users or customers if they're single-address such as the DHCP pool of a broadband ISP, cf. ripe-606 section 6.2), then the old company/LIR may simply delegate the blocks to the new company by registering completely standard ASSIGNED PA inetnums. In this case there are no minimum size limits to worry about (sub-allocations are limited at /24, transfers at /22 as Elvis noted). 5) In the case that #4 doesn't work because the customers of the new company have specific (non-pooled) assignments, the new company could simply contract the old company to provide the registry services directly for them. In other words that the old company will continue to maintain the assignments in the database for each individual (non-pooled) customer of the new company. This option would obviously require a tight working relationship between the new and old companies, as every time the new company lands a new customer, they the old company must register the associated assignment. Those two options, as well as the sub-allocation option, have the added benefit that they're cheaper for the new company, as it doesn't have to become an LIR on its own and pay the NCC membership fee. In any case, Nigel's problem statement is very similar to the one presented by Sascha Pollok in Athens as the rationale for 2013-05: https://ripe67.ripe.net/archives/video/32/ http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05 Considering that 2013-05 blitzed through the PDP with hardly any opposition, I'd say that Nigel's worry that moving around the addresses in the manner described is considered "reprehensible" is completely unfounded; "totally OK" would be more accurate, I think. Tore
... and there's always the LIR-PARTITIONED option which almost nobody uses. btw, regarding the two options I presented earlier, If you do not have any intention in further transferring the space within two years, I would recommend using the transfer procedure. I recommend using the transfer policy because the RIPE NCC has updated their process for mergers and acquisitions and it's now (from my experience) painfully long and difficult (if you do not fit perfectly in their script). cheers, elvis On 26/03/14 09:22, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Wilfried Woeber
...and, depending on what the distribution of customer assignments across the overall address space looks like, you may be able to use the suballocation mechanism.
Admittedly, I have never used that or did any in-depth analysis of the possibilities. Just a hint to maybe also look at. I may be fully off-track, too. I think both you and Elvis are spot-on.
There are even more options than the three already mentioned...
4) If the assignments in question are made to the new spun off company's own infrastructure (which may include separate end-users or customers if they're single-address such as the DHCP pool of a broadband ISP, cf. ripe-606 section 6.2), then the old company/LIR may simply delegate the blocks to the new company by registering completely standard ASSIGNED PA inetnums. In this case there are no minimum size limits to worry about (sub-allocations are limited at /24, transfers at /22 as Elvis noted).
5) In the case that #4 doesn't work because the customers of the new company have specific (non-pooled) assignments, the new company could simply contract the old company to provide the registry services directly for them. In other words that the old company will continue to maintain the assignments in the database for each individual (non-pooled) customer of the new company. This option would obviously require a tight working relationship between the new and old companies, as every time the new company lands a new customer, they the old company must register the associated assignment.
Those two options, as well as the sub-allocation option, have the added benefit that they're cheaper for the new company, as it doesn't have to become an LIR on its own and pay the NCC membership fee.
In any case, Nigel's problem statement is very similar to the one presented by Sascha Pollok in Athens as the rationale for 2013-05:
https://ripe67.ripe.net/archives/video/32/ http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2013-05
Considering that 2013-05 blitzed through the PDP with hardly any opposition, I'd say that Nigel's worry that moving around the addresses in the manner described is considered "reprehensible" is completely unfounded; "totally OK" would be more accurate, I think.
Tore
-- <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.
participants (4)
-
Elvis Daniel Velea -
Nigel Titley -
Tore Anderson -
Wilfried Woeber