Re: Summary of Recent Discussion
- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 19:05:53 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Fine with me.
- - kurtis -
On torsdag, aug 7, 2003, at 10:30 Europe/Stockholm, leo vegoda wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Below is a summary of the recent discussions on the list. If there
> are no objections to it, I would like to send it to the
> address-policy-wg@localhost mailing list on Monday morning. That
> will give the wide WG an opportunity to review and discuss the
> issues raised prior to the Address Policy WG's session at RIPE 46 on
> 3 September.
>
> Best regards,
>
> --
> leo vegoda
> RIPE NCC
> Registration Services Manager
>
>
> A summary of the PI TF's initial discussions was agreed and posted
> to the lir-wg@localhost mailing list on 6 May 2003. It can be found
> at:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/2003/msg00265.html
>
> Gert D�ring presented on the discussion at the RIPE 45 LIR WG
> session. His slides can be found at:
>
> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-45/presentations/ripe45-lir-pi-
> tf.pdf
>
> At RIPE 45 there was an agreement that the Task Force should
> continue its work. There was also an agreement that the PI policy is
> tied to the qualifying criteria for an initial IPv4 allocation.
>
> Discussion focused around a straw-man proposal to make four related
> policy changes. The proposed changes are outlines below along with a
> summary of comments received on them.
>
> 1. Reduce the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21
>
> - There was some support for this point. There were requests for
> /21 allocations to come from a new and separately identified
> address blocks.
>
> 2. Remove the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the
> allocated address space (a /23 in this case)
>
> - There was no objection to this point. It was pointed out that
> with a lower barrier to entry the overhead of checking each
> requester is ready to use 512 IP addresses straight away would be
> unlikely to be equal to the value of the work.
>
> 3. No longer assign PI (Portable) address space to End Users
>
> - There some support for to this point. The issue of Root DNS
> Servers was raised but it was noted that all Root DNS Servers
> operating in this region already have address assignments.
>
> 4. End Users requiring a portable address block could become an LIR
> and receive a /21 allocation.
>
> - There was some support for this point. The costs of operating an
> LIR were raised as an issue. It was also noted that everyone may
> become an LIR. There is no barrier to membership of the RIPE NCC.
> There was a suggestion for a one-time service fee.
>
> There were also some additional comments:
>
> It was noted that if the policy allows for address allocations based
> on other criteria than prior demonstrated need some providers may
> filter those allocations. It was also noted that the RIPE NCC cannot
> provide any guarantee as to whether address space will or will not
> be routed of filtered by network operators.
>
> Some statistics were requested and provided for the first half of
> 2003:
>
> ASN assignments: 599
> Allocation: 377
> PI Assignments: 408
>
> Number of /20s allocated per month for the same period:
>
> 200301 7
> 200302 20
> 200303 14
> 200304 16
> 200305 35
> 200306 24
>
> Finally, it was noted that there is a requirement for globally
> unique addresses that will not be routed on the Internet.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.2
iQA/AwUBPzKG9aarNKXTPFCVEQK+0gCdF2HZkZdxvZSSaOyE6k6eO48PZwkAn3In
rzQZ9we4K4mT975ZMwgwGS/9
=0eJm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
