Hi Tore, True. If indeed the "downstream" in this policy statement is in relation to the hierarchical registry system rather than in BGP transit terms, then yes PA customer assignments that are routed separately to the LIR are valid.
I raised the question as I've heard several community members complain, validly IMO, about some LIRs that have accumulated vast v4 PA allocations that are technically autonomous to the LIR. Seems strange to have been allowed, especially considering the market value on these resources now. James -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson Sent: 07 July 2015 16:41 To: Kennedy, James Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] PA policy Hi James, * Kennedy, James > "LIRs are allocated Provider Aggregatable (PA) address space. They > sub-allocate and assign this to *downstream networks*." > https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-643#7 > > To me this reads networks or End Users assigned PA space must receive > transit from the LIR holding the parent allocation. I understand "downstream" to refer to the hierarchical internet number registry system here, not BGP routing topology. Otherwise, we'd all have to buy our IP-transit from the RIPE NCC, who'd in turn have to buy it from the IANA.... > Or can the LIR assign PA blocks to customers/companies that don't > receive transit, or any other technical network service for that > matter, from the LIR? That's how the policy has been implemented so far, yes. Note that the RIPE database gladly allow ASSIGNED PA inet(6)nums to get their own completely independent route(6) objects. Tore
