* Brian Storey
I only have a short window to reply, however I would clarify that I fall in
to the " Registering a PA Assignment with something like "CUSTOMER-1234" and
an email address pointing to the LIR has been acceptable for all this
time.»" category. I am therefore looking at this through the lens of this
approach.
In which-ever form the end user is illustrated, it's the total permitted
absence of that which is the surprise; Unless I have misunderstood the
recently shared RIPE NNC interpretation.
Hi again Brian,
To be clear, "CUSTOMER-1234" above was not meant to be substituted with
the actual name of the customer, but rather taken as verbatim netname
attribute value. While one may infer from that string that it is indeed
a customer assignment (as opposed a self-assignment to the LIR's own
infrastructure), as well as revealing a possible customer account
number, even those bits of information are optional to include. Below
you will find an example of a complete inetnum object representing an
assignment to the End User «CarFactory GmbH» by the LIR «SuperLIR GmbH»,
which RIPE NCC explicitly confirmed to be compliant with current address
policy (see
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2023-September/013856.html):
inetnum: 192.0.2.0 - 192.0.2.128
netname: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
country: DE
admin-c: SUPERLIR-NOC-RIPE
tech-c: SUPERLIR-NOC-RIPE
status: ASSIGNED PA
mnt-by: SUPERLIR-MNT
source: RIPE
If you, or anyone else, want to "minimise" your assignments as shown in
the above example, you can do so already today. It is already considered
accepted practice and has been for decades. 2023-04's fate is totally
irrelevant as to whether or not you or any other LIR can adopt this
practice, assuming you want to.
Best regards,
Jeroen & Tore
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
