Am 04.08.2016 um 13:05 schrieb Netmaster (KPN Eurorings B.V. Germany): > But splitting current A-PI/-U is as such not really a nice thing. It will > leave the initial holders of the ranges with little fragments. True, > nothing which cannot be handled, but if I announce e.g. a /16 or have to > announce 50+ (or more or less) /20-/24s, it makes a difference (operational > and financially). Yes, more filters, reverse zones, ROAs, ... Yes, everything > is possible, but I don't like it. I represent one of the PI resource holders especially in one of "your" /14 unspecified blocks, thus let me point out some things, I of course have the resource hold hat on, too:
- It is not on the side of the resource holders that they can't be contacted, it is just that it is difficult to us to find a LIR contact that is responsive. You probably know about the dificulties with big organisations and there have been no approach to contact us in the last years. - At the time your company received the /14 from the *liquidator* of KPNQwest, the unspecified and PI attributes were already installed. This means: Your company knew, what they bought, and they knew, that there were third party rights *already*. This means: These third party PI has to be respected (and in our case: We got a statement from RIPE NCC that we received and use it in good favor, and yes, we still use it and do not intend to change this). - There are of course no contracts any more, bankrupt LIR means bankrupt LIR means bankrupt LIR (in this case: KPNQwest had been *liquidated*, *no* transfer of rights, because otherwise KPN would have had to pay the old KPNQwest debts what they didn't). - Thus in general: If the solution is to split, if there is *no other* agreement and the RIPE NCC wants to separate this spaces, it has to. "Big companies effort" is no reason to interfere with third party rights or just grab them. - *However*: Reasonable people typically find reasonable solutions. The current /24 over /14 works for us - as long as KPN routes any traffic misrouted then to correct destination, provides RDNS (this is a thing that should be discussed how to handle), does not block maintainers (dto.!) etc. - For us it is just important to clarify that the current situation does not give the unspecified "holder" any specific rights, which means: Any solution like that above works as long as the third party rights are *respected* by the big party, too. It is on the side of the "unspecified" holder (LIR) to reach mutual agreement, because they want to reduce the effort. - It is as with all resources: At the end, organization rules here or there, it ends up that resources are something important to individuals or organisations and resources that have been registered as independent for more than 15 years are obviously covered by EU law, thus this is not a decision that can be done just by majority vote or company policy or whatever, it is as with other resources something that is protected by law. With respect Oliver -- Bartels System GmbH + 80935 München, Germany + Ust. Id. DE129296210 [email protected] + http://www.bartels.de + Tel. +49-(0)89-856305-0 Handelsregister AG München HRB85259 + Geschäftsführer Oliver Bartels
