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

["Hans Petter Holen" <]

Dear WG,
As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on
this matter.

Seasons Greetings,
Hans Petter Holen
Address Policy WG Chair

|Dear WG,
|I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has 
|been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and 
|proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to 
|declare consensus on this issue.
|
|There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some 
|critical comments that it is my understanding has been 
|clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule 
|or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy).
|
|With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline 
|was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for 
|objections to the process on this  matter. If I receive 
|objections I propose to set a I month comment period before 
|calling for closure on this matter. 
|
|Best Regards,
|Hans Petter Holen
|Address Policy WG Chair
|
||-----Original Message-----
||From: address-policy-wg-admin@localhost 
||[
	    
	    
] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM
||
||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA 
||allocation size
||
||Hi,
||
||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, 
|and we had 
||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me).
||
||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present 
||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy.
||
||
||PROPOSAL:
||
||  * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from
||    a /20, as of today, to a /21.
||    (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial 
|allocation,
||    they can get a larger address block.  This will not be changed).
||
||  * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated
||    address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation"
||
||
||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, 
||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get 
||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or 
||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate 
||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space.
||
||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as 
||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for 
||their own PA again.
||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely 
||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table 
||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it 
||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed 
||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers).
||
||
||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting 
||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with 
||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21).  The wastage 
||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to 
||fill the initial /21.
||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" 
||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the 
||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in 
||RIPE land today.
||
||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.
||
||Gert Doering
||        -- NetMaster
||--
||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  
||57785 (56883)
||
||SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
||80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
||
|