You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

PI & 1st allocation policy

  • To: PI Policy Task Force < >
  • From: leo vegoda < >
  • Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:37:28 +0200
Hi again,

I'd like to re-start discussion of the PI and 1st allocation policy. There is now less than two months before RIPE 46 in September. It would be nice to be closer to conclusions by then.

The current policy is that anyone qualifying for an amount of PA space qualifies for the same amount of space in PI. Routing may not be considered as justification for additional addresses. When this policy was set there were no initial criteria for qualifying for a PA allocation. That meant that as RIPE NCC membership is open to all anyone could obtain a /19 of PA by paying a membership fee - even if they only justified a /25 and wanted a /24 of PI.

The minimum allocation size was changed to from a /19 to a /20 in August 2000 following research indicting that fewer than them majority of /19 allocations were not even half used[1]. Then, in November 2001 the current initial criteria for receiving an initial IPv4 allocation were introduced. These followed a discussion at RIPE 39[2] and on the lir-wg@localhost mailing list[3].

Almost two years on we see that we have about two years of PI space left from the "traditional Class C" space. We also have a situation that can make it difficult for new LIRs to obtain an initial IPv4 allocation. This puts some LIRs in a difficult position. They need to balance the benefits of a single, contiguous network against the costs of renumbering from assorted PI assignments for their own and their customers networks.

At the same time we can see that only about 20% of LIRs receiving a /20 allocation have requested a second allocation. This suggests that a /20 is plenty for the majority of organisations.

However, we are very much aware that many organisations that will clearly have an ongoing need for address space have problems receiving an initial allocation. This is because an LIR needs to show an immediate need for a /22 to receive an initial allocation. The RIPE NCC interprets immediate need as 'within three months'. The problem is that an LIR may have need for address space, and may have customers with a need for address space. However, both their needs are most likely spread over a period of 18 months to two years. This makes things difficult for the LIR and complicates the processes the RIPE NCC needs to implement.

Based on these data, I would like to make a proposal for discussion. Please feel free to knock holes in the proposal. I believe it is important to explore the issue and so want to make sure that suggestions are discussed.

% ----- Proposal ----- %

1. Reduce the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21
2. Remove the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated
address space (a /23 in this case)
3. No longer assign PI (Portable) address space to End Users
4. End Users requiring a portable address block could become an LIR and receive
a /21 allocation.

% ----- Proposal ----- %

I would appreciate feedback on why items one through four are good or bad suggestions. I would also appreciate input as to whether they are acceptable as a group of policy changes.

Please let me known if you want me to clarify any points.

Finally, I'd like to offer some stats on ASN assignments and IPv4 allocations and assignments for the first half of 2003. These data might be useful in the discussion:

ASN assignments: 599
Allocation: 377
PI Assignments: 408

Thanks,

-leo

[1] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/2000/msg00115.html
[2] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/aspolicy
[3] http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/2001/msg00302.html

--
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager



  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>