Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)

[Dmitry Kiselev dmitry@localhost]

Hello, Leo!

On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:19:27PM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:


> >Some minor questions: why /21?  It is just current minimum  
> >allocation size?
> >If yes, what about changes which possible in future?
> 
> Good question.
> 
> I looked at the policy in other regions[0] and saw that there was  
> quite a spread. For instance, APNIC's current policy[1] is very  
> similar policy to RIPE's. In contrast, ARIN's current policy[2]  
> requires small to large ISPs to seek ARIN's approval before making  
> reassignments of a /19. That goes up to /18 for extra-large ISPs.
> 
> ISPs in North America seem to cope fairly well with more freedom than  
> is currently available in the RIPE region. However, 0 to /19 is a big  
> leap. I thought that /21 was a good balance between providing LIRs  
> with more freedom while limiting the amount of damage to a relatively  
> small size.
> 
> If the proposal is accepted and doesn't cause any significant harm  
> then increasing the first AW from /21 to a shorter prefix may be  
> appropriate in the future.


Hm... Is there statistics which shows subnet size requested per user
for last year?  Something like (actual numbers is just an example!):

       Size          Requests in 2006

     4-32 addresses   5,000     10%
    33-64 addresses   8,000     12%
       ...
  256-511 addresses  50,000     44%
       ...
2048-4095 addresses   1,300      6%
4096-8191 addresses     750      3%
       ...

In my opinion AW can be auto-rised to almost match most "popular"
assignments sizes. All further risings(lowers) can be done upon LIR
request.  If stats does not show clear peak - AW size can be aligned
to nearest bigest value.

-- 
Dmitry Kiselev