[address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Andre Koopal
andre.koopal at nld.mci.com
Fri Dec 15 14:10:01 CET 2006
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:55:36AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote: > On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote: > > [...] > > >Could I suggest an alternative based on experience in dealing with new > >LIRs on the ground? Many new LIRs are smaller operations with > >relatively small address space usage, and simply wouldn't get to > >send in > >a huge number of assignment requests within the first 6 months. > > This I agree with. > > > Because > >of this, they're just not going to get the hang of RIPE's address > >space > >administrative requirements. > > This I don't. > > The RIPE NCC has found that less than 5% of requests need anything > more than a comment from them because the person making the request > met all of the administrative and policy requirements. LIRs seem to > gain this experience pretty fast and they can't make truly large > mistakes because the slow start policy restricts the size of LIRs' > first few allocations. New LIRs don't really have very much space to > waste, so there is relatively little risk. > > > Would it not therefore be more sensible to > >automatically increase the AW after either a set number of well-formed > >assignment requests were sent into RIPE? > > That's basically what happens now: evidence based AW raises. It makes > AW growth a slow process that involves LIRs sending in huge numbers > of request forms that don't really need any input from the RIPE NCC > staff. > > Looking at slide 10 of Filiz's recent presentation at the Region > Meeting in Manama, Bahrain, we can see that PA Requests account for > about 60% of the requests handled: > > http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/manama-2006/presentations/ > stats_policyupdate.pdf > > - or - > > http://tinyurl.com/yjushp > > Relaxing this policy lowers the administrative burden for the vast > majority of LIRs while the RIPE NCC retains the ability to select the > size of an LIR's allocation, so limiting the damage they can do. The > RIPE NCC also has an explicit mandate to audit LIRs (ripe-170), and > were this proposal accepted, they would be able to expand this role, > providing additional, targeted support for those few LIRs that need it. > Hi Leo,all, If the hostmasters are spending to much time on doing simple requests then they might not just show initiative enough to raise the assignment window when a LIR behaves 'good'. Having said that, I can still support that the first step in the AW is from 0 to a /21 in one go. I however do have problems with doing it automaticly after half a year. I still think it is good that a LIR is helped (not controlled, helped) by having the first requests go through the hostmaster team. Now if you take that into account, a big ISP that for example opens a new LIR for a new country will be annoyed the first half year, while for a startup company that is really still starting up and not doing requests yet, half a year might be to short. So I really think that raising the AW to the /21 should be hostmaster initiated. If they don't do it quickly enough, that is an internal problem that should be handled with for example training. A suggestion might be to do an audit every 3 months on all LIR's that still have an AW of 0. Regards, Andre Koopal -- Andre Koopal EMEA Server & Service Management - Int ITSD Verizon Business H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 123 1096 AM Amsterdam Netherlands VNET: 711 6990 tel : +31 (0)20 711 6990 fax : +31 (0)20 711 2519 Verizon and MCI are now operating as Verizon Business ! This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the addressee unless otherwise indicated.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]