Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 New Policy Proposal (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)

[Sascha Lenz slz@localhost]

Hi,

Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:25:50AM +0200, Fernando García wrote:
>> I would modify your propossal to:
>> 1st AW or /24
>> Raised AW to /22 after the first or second allocation is made if  
>> there are no errors in those.
> 
> Well, that's the way it is now - if you send a few requests to the
> NCC hostmasters, and they are approved, you're granted an AW of the
> size of these requests (roughly so).  
> 
> So we wouldn't actually need the second sentence, it would account
> to "minimum AW of a /24"...  - which I could live with, but Leo is 
> clearly aiming for "more".

For (standard) IPv6 assignments, you don't even have to ask RIPE in most
cases by default.
So, raising the IPv4 AW and thus (supposingly) reducing the workload on
RIPE Hostmasters could probably leave to less cost and lower RIPE
Membership fees - and/or better services as pointed out in the proposal.

Although i'm a bit puzzled about this proposal (never thought about
changing the AW handling lately), i'm supporting the proposal in general
(larger AWs). I don't think there will be much negative impact.

One might discuss the details though.
I wouldn't object keeping a slow-start mechanism (to proof some kind of
clue). Probably starting with - whatever - /24? and doubling the AW
every two or three (RIPE approved) requests, regardless of their size.
But this probably doesn't make that much sense either.

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz@localhost         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================