Re: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size

[leo vegoda <]

Hi Sascha,

On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 04:49:03PM +0200, Sascha Lenz wrote:

[...]

> whereas I do support this for the given reasons which already have been 
> discussed on the list(s) and during the RIPE Meeting, i - again - want 
> to raise some side-effect this might have together with another proposal 
>  that goes with this one: no more (newly assigned) PI space.
> 
> Reducing the minimum allocation size + Very-Small RIPE membership is a 
> nice thing for small/start-up companies, but still a problem for 
> very-very-very-small non-commercial organisations or 
> very-very-very-small not-so-commercial companies.
> 
> I still fear this might lead into the situation that those can't get any 
> independant IP-Space anymore at all.
> This might also be a negligible issue for most people here, but at least 
> i want to raise it again.

The proposal being discussed makes no change to the policy for
PI assignments.

> I wouldn't like to see than an organisation isn't able to get 
> independant IP-space for monetary reasons, as long as they can show good 
> reasons why they need it.
> 
> So, there should be some exceptions here, for example (even more) 
> reduced LIR fee for non-commercial organisations or possibility to get 
> some addresses out of the swamp-space in those cases but no PI space in 
> general anymore - or whatever.

I think that changes to the fee schedule can only be agreed by the
General Meeting.

[...]

> >A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt their BGP
> >filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) where these allocations
> >are made from.  So the RIPE NCC needs to document this accordingly,
> >and ideally, well in advance.
> 
> That's a bigger problem. I'd say RIPE shouldn't start allocating
> smaller Prefixes from the existing /8-blocks, but rather get a new
> one from IANA and start _there_

We publish a document detailing our minimum allocation and
assignment sizes. The latest version can always be found at:

   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/smallest-alloc-sizes.html>

Updates to the document are always announced on a number of
mailing lists. If you can suggest a more appropriate set
of lists to announce updates then we can update our procedure.

Should this proposal be accepted we would not lower the minimum 
allocation size for any existing /8 to /21. The minimum would be
applied to a new /8.

This might be an appropriate place to remind people that the draft
global policy for allocations from the IANA to RIRs is currently
under review. The review period ends on 16 November. The document can
be found at:

   <http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/iana-rir-allocation-policies.html>

Best regards,

-- 
leo vegoda
RIPE NCC
Registration Services Manager