[address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Sascha Luck [ml]
apwg at c4inet.net
Tue Jul 7 18:34:09 CEST 2015
On Tue, Jul 07, 2015 at 04:17:23PM +0000, Kennedy, James wrote: >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. Actually, even assignments which are *not at all* connected to the Internet are valid. In practice, the vast majority of assignments will be downstream of the assigning LIR due to the routing issues mentioned earlier in the thread. >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. It is allowed because the intention of the policy was never to impose a hierarchy on the structure of the Internet, merely to have a distributed registry, rather than one huge juggernaut. And yeah, the phrasing is sufficiently ambiguous for this to have come up on the list before... rgds, Sascha Luck
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] PA policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]