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

[Sascha Lenz <]

Hay,

leo vegoda wrote:

[...]
> > 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.
right, that's why i wrote that this should be discussed seperately, 
probably by the time when someone raises the "no PI assignments anymore" 
policy suggestion again - which also was discussed at various ocassions.

But the reasons given for the policy change suggested here are the first 
steps towards the scenario i described. "No more PI assigments" was 
always discussed together with the changes suggested here.

Due to this circumstances i felt the urge to drop in here already so 
noone can say "most people in the RIPE community bark after they are hit 
only instead of joining the discussions early" again.
Those annotations in the first paragraphs of my reply was only meant as 
a reminder for later discussion which i thought was clear enough.

Sorry if this was misunderstood.
Of course it's nothing directly affecting the change of the 
First-Allocation Policy...

> > 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.
>
> [...]
No doubts about that. As i said, i didn't make any concrete suggestions. 
I just was a bit dissapointed that the newly introduced Extra-Small 
Membership is still ~2kEUR/year.

But there are other possibilities to ensure that every organisation can 
get address space they want. There are PI assignments now, which i 
personally do like the way it is handled by RIPE right now.
Though as mentioned above lowering the crieria for new LIRs and no need 
to show an initial use of a /22 is the first step towards shutting down 
PI assignments because noone (ISP, company..) would need PI space than 
anymore in first place. They just can get LIR now regardless of how 
small they are.
Most seem to agree, that anyone who "own's" or manages address space 
should get a LIR in the future.
I can only agree to this as long as the financal hurdle here is not set 
too high, otherwise i think we should keep going with PI/swamp 
assignments like now, at least for special circumstances.

> > > 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.
correct, every descent network operator does know the well known places 
where the RIRs do announce their minimum allocations ect.

This just didn't help that often because there are also many 
not-so-decent network operators who only copy some bogon-filters from 
some book or article and never update them :-(

Better ways of handling this are already being discussed on various 
other mailinglists, but with not very much consensus yet AFAICS.
I can't help much about this, i'm no developer :-)

I'd really suggest to start with /21 allocations from a new block and 
only use the old /8-blocks with their current minimum allocation size of 
/20 or /19 when a LIR requests Allocations of this size or bigger.
In my eyes this would be the least painful and quickest way of 
introducing /21 Allocations.

Anyways, to make it clear in the end:

Please go for it! In general i certainly vote in favour for this policy 
change!

--
========================================================================
= Sascha 'master' Lenz         SLZ-RIPE          slz@localhost         =
= NOC BayCIX GmbH                                                      =
= http://www.noc.baycix.de/              * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================