On 2017 May 23 (Tue) at 14:35:01 +0200 (+0200), Gert Doering wrote: :Hi, : :On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 02:10:06PM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: :> https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-682#2-0-transfers-within-the-ripe-ncc-service-region :> :> I saw this restriction: :> :> """ :> Allocated resources may only be transferred to another RIPE NCC member. :> Provider Independent resources may be transferred to: :> :> * A RIPE NCC member; or :> * An entity that has a contractual relationship with a RIPE NCC member :> in accordance with the RIPE Policy, :> """ :> :> Note the difference between Allocated (PA) and Provider Independent (PI). :> :> Is this split intentional? Would a proposal to unify both under the :> existing PI rules be welcome? : :This split is intentional - a PA holder can only be a LIR, while a PI :can be held by a LIR or by a non-LIR end user, provided they have a :contractual relationship with a LIR. : :So unless we change the whole model of "who can hold which address space" :(and abandon the PA/PI distinction while at it) the transfer policy :document just reflects what address policy always required for the :initial holder of a given "bag of numbers". : :Gert Doering : -- NetMaster :-- :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
Right now I don't feel like trying to change the whole model, so the policy makes sense as it is. Thanks! -- A day for firm decisions!!!!! Or is it?
