[ppml] Allocation and reallocation

william at elan.net william at elan.net
Mon Oct 27 17:55:26 EST 2003

I did not want to get into this "wording" debate before, because I often 
do not use correct language as is, but seems to me Mury's terms here are 
the best ones so for mentioned, in particular we can easily replace 
"ALLOCATED" by "ASSIGNED TO LIR" or just "LIR IP Block" (no matter from 
if its assigned from RIR or from another LIR) and "ASSIGNED" can be
"ASSIGNED TO END-USER" or "END-User IP Block". I did not particularly like 
how he introduced who assigned the block, and still prefer indication if 
ip block is portable or not. So to me the following looks like the best if 
we want to find replacement for "ALLOCATION" and "ASSIGNMENT":

PORTABLE END-USER IP BLOCK = ASSIGNED by ARIN directly to Organization

With LIR defined as any organization that is making allocations or 
assignments of ip space.

On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Mury wrote:

> I can't remember who proposed what, so forgive me for not giving
> appropriate credit, but besides the generic argument wanting to leave
> things as is, what are the arguments against something like the following:
> "LIR" IPs (Currently assignable and allocatable - forgive the grammar/sp)
> "END" user IPs (Currently assignments)
> >From there you could use notation such as:
> LIR(L) Space that has been further allocated from an ISP to an ISP
> LIR(R) Space from a RIR to an ISP
> END(L) Space from a LIR to an end user
> END(R) Space from a RIR to an end user
> This would be consistant with the current RIR/LIR language being used.  It
> would also be easy to identify the properties and responsibities that go
> hand and hand with being a LIR, such as you must swip your space and you
> may further divide your space.
> My two cents is that the usage requirements of space to an end user from
> either a LIR or a RIR should be the same.  But, if you wanted to
> distinguish a difference you could do so with the (L) and (R) syntax.
> This of course is helpful in determining if the space is "portable..."
> meaing assignments having been made from a RIR.
> If that is viewed as messy, two fields could be used.  One being the type
> of space (LIR or END), and the other being what the "upstream" entity is
> (LIR or RIR).
> Mury
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> >
> > This all comes back to the reason I started this thread.  The policy
> > is not clear.  The policy needs to be made clear so we can't have
> > these arguments as to what it means.  An ISP shouldn't have to guess
> > what the requirements will be, or really even ask for clarification.
> > They should be spelled out clearly.
> >
> > The problem is as soon as you try to clarify the policy two things
> > happen.  People think you're trying to change the policy (in this
> > case I don't want to change it, just make it clear) because today
> > there are multiple ways to view it, and there should only be one.
> > That represents change to the people who have the other (wrong?)
> > opinion.  The other is that many other people jump in expressly to
> > change the policy.
> >
> > If the people who care about policy and have joined this list can't
> > agree on what it says how can we expect the average ARIN member or
> > staffer to get it right?
> >
> > --
> >        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> >         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> > Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list