Hi, On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 08:59:07PM +0900, Randy Bush wrote: > > Right now, there are two different shades of "PI colour" - "real PI" > > and "not really real PI". > is there a list of all the colors and what they mean?
I used to assume there is "ALLOCATED PA", "ASSIGNED PA" and "ASSIGNED PI",
and those are well-defined. Add "Legacy" to it (outside RIR framework).
We have learned that there are more interesting shades, namely
"ALLOCATED PI", "ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED" and "ASSIGNED PI (not really)" -
these are not seen often, and their meaning is not all that clear.
[..]
> i have this feeling you are trying to say something here. i.e. if i am
> the LIR, can i move "not really real PI" between customers and no one
> knows?
Maybe. "not really real PI" is happening outside the RIPE policy
framework - namely, no 2007-01 contracts, the NCC has no idea who
the "real" address holder is, and the holder cannot complain to the
NCC if all of a sudden "his" address space is registered to someone
else...
There seems to be "old stuff that happened 15+ years ago" and "new
stuff that is still ongoing", so there won't be "one solution" either.
> > Also, it might lead to deaggs (Markus' case) where a /14 that was
> > originally "in one LIR" would be "3x /16, plus some smaller fragments
> > in the LIR" and "lots of /24 PI managed by the NCC" now - so the /14
> > won't get a ROA, and he'll have to announce more-specifics.
>
> lemme see if i get this. to have the owner registration correct, some
> address space will have to be broken up and owned by multiple IRs, thus
> fragmenting routing? i like correct registration, but the commons has
> become pretty polluted.
I leave the definite answer to Ingrid to answer.
My understanding of "normal" NCC<->LIR stockkeeping is that PI is never
living inside blocks that "belong" to a given LIR. So, the LIR would
never be able to get a ROA covering PI space.
For some of these "old" blocks, there is a /16 which covers regular
LIR/PA space, and "not real PI" space, and the LIR can get a ROA that
covers their PA space, and also these "not real PI" blocks (because
according to the NCC records, the /16 "belongs" to the LIR).
From an aggregation PoV, this is ok-ish - but from a routing security
PoV, I wonder if that's what we want (the "not real PI" block might
be routed totally elsewhere now).
> > So, to answer your question: for those "swampy PI", it would alter
> > their rights (contracts according to 2007-01), costs (50 EUR/year)
>
> whoops. that's gonna cause unhappiness.
Dunno. We (the RIPE community and the NCC) rolled out 2007-01 to all the
other PI holders, and the amount of unhappiness was not very big.
Those cases that I was involved with my "LIR admin-c" hat on, PI holders
seemed to be happy to have a clear contract with a known entity (us), and
the assurance that this would ensure that nobody else could make claims
to their address space.
Gert Doering
-- assorted hats
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
