RE: Criteria for initial PA Allocation
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 12:27:42 +0200
(1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who
can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
Allocating /20 is reasonable due to routing limitations
There are two end of knot called Internet: End Users and Service Providers
(e.g. Portals). I do insist on recognizing needs of LIRs servicing Service
Providers only. Such an organization has to do multi homing and by nature
will use only a fraction of assigned allocation since system servicing end
users needs limited number od IPs if properly configured. As it was
discussed before we should keep in mind routing tables growth while handling
out IP blocks. We can argue if initial allocation of /21 is better than /20,
but thinking about much smaller allocations is not practical.
(2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a
policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can
demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address
space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?
See comment above. As long as I can have routable block I am fine.
(3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment
policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles
established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately,
50% utilization within one year)?
PI should be avoided, there should be two options:
1) Connect to existing provider and use his service
2) Establish your own connectivity / routing policy
So you either need a chunk of PA space or own PA block. Yes I do think a
need for own connectivity has to be well justified
(4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of
address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation
from RIPE?
Once we decide to abandon PI renumbering seems practical
