[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Stolpe
stolpe at resilans.se
Mon May 23 14:43:16 CEST 2011
On Mon, 23 May 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote: > On 05/23/2011 12:01 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote: >> If you allow me to summarize: it is your opinion that the community is >> better off with the RIPE NCC not handing out address space it has >> available? I would have to politely disagree. > RIPE NCC can handle returned address space in similar way, as it does > today, I mentioned that. Why not to assign /21, /20 to someone, if RIPE > NCC can (=has other space than last /8)? Normal allocations with > standard policy can be processed, instead of carving last /8. There're > still other limitations in place - like 6/3month address plans etc. > Reserve in last /8 is - in my oppinion - large enough. There's no reason > to apply last /8 policy to other address space - this will really only > hold available addresses in RIPE NCC without being really used (as last > /8 policy is very restrictive). > >> I agree that aggregation is a concern as well as filtering, but given that >> we're appending this address space to the end of the final /8 in >> allocation terms, this space would only be (re)allocated after we've run >> out of the final /8; that is, after some 16,000 /22s have been handed out. >> What the default free zone will look like is anybody's guess, but I've got >> a pint saying that handing out /22s from other /8s is unlikely to make it >> a lot worse, even more so for the assorted snippets of address space that >> come after that. > Based on current numbers of current/new members of RIPE NCC, this will > hapen sometimes after 12-18 years? If this will hapen really. In last > /8, there's only one /22 per LIR, so it's quite easy calculation. Also I > assume, that some LIRs will not apply for their last /22. > >> If people run filters based on RIPE documents (or any other source for >> that matter), they're well advised to have a procedure in place to keep >> those filters up to date. > That's not argument for making these these things harder compared to > current convetions. I guess this depends on what we want to happen. If we think it's about time to "act now" on IPv6 this is probably the right thing. As I wrote earlier, once we enter the "final /8 stage" any remaning and/or returned IPv4 space will be locked. That means it will be complete meningless to return any space to the RIPE NCC and we will surely see quite a bit of black market tradning instead. So Daniel has got a point but as Gert pointed out it might be outside the scope of this proposal. Regards, Daniel Stolpe _________________________________________________________________________________ Daniel Stolpe Tel: 08 - 688 11 81 stolpe at resilans.se Resilans AB Fax: 08 - 55 00 21 63 http://www.resilans.se/ Box 13 054 556741-1193 103 02 Stockholm
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]