Re: Criteria for initial PA Allocation

[Alfredo Sola <]

> The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have
> insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20
> address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is
> for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe
> organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining
> portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and
> workload membership comprises.

	We are painfully aware of this. Furthermore, many mid to large organisations
could do it with less than a /24 as they are doing address translation and
need only a handful of IPs for the translated users and a handful of public
servers.

	However, I don't think it is feasible to allocate such small ranges. The only
alternative to me seems to lower the initial allocation of Enterprise LIRs to
a /22 or even a /24 (if a range is available that won't be filtered out by the
usual prefix length policies), except if the LIR asks for something larger on
the first request.

	By doing that, you would also be able to say to PI requesters to get a LIR,
which they don't actually need to get their IPs as of now.

	Responsibilities - I honestly don't have a suggestion for that, other than
pointing out that when one needs only one range and maybe a second one after
many months or even years, this can probably be done without much hassle. It
would be more of a problem if we were talking about ISPs, which need new
allocations every day.

--
Alfredo Sola
Director técnico

() ascii ribbon campaign
/\ Support plain text e-mail