This policy proposal has been accepted
The new RIPE Document is: ripe-655
You're looking at an older version: 1
The current (published) version is 2The current RIPE IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy (ripe-641, section 5.1.2) recognises only ‘the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation’s infrastructure’ when assessing the requirement for an initial allocation size greater than /29. This is proving problematic for organisations whose IPv6 addressing requirements are not fully represented by such criteria.
For example:
Hierarchical Networks – The infrastructure of some organisations, particularly those with a multi-national presence, is often made up of component networks which can be regarded as Internet service providers in their own right. In many cases these ISPs could be eligible to become LIRs themselves and therefore each could obtain a /29 without justification. However, it is often important that they operate subordinately to the ‘parent’ organisation not only administratively but also technically on matters such as routing and addressing. In such cases, the need for a hierarchical addressing strategy can lead to an overall addressing requirement larger than that measured simply by the number of End User networks yet the current assessment criteria does not allow consideration of this, despite the principles of hierarchy and aggregation being stated (in section 3) as key goals of address space management.
Multiple Discrete Networks – Some organisations have a requirement to operate multiple discrete networks with completely independent routing and address management policies. Justification varies but may include, for example, regulatory restrictions on data transmission or geographic distance/diversity between networks. However, the requirement for multiple discrete prefixes is not eligible for consideration by the current initial allocation size assessment criteria.
It is proposed that the assessment criteria for an initial allocation size greater than /29 should allow consideration of aspects other than ‘size’ alone. To achieve this, it is suggested that the specific criteria ‘number of existing users and the extent of the organisation’s infrastructure’ is removed from the sizing assessment and, optionally, replaced by specific exclusions if/as deemed necessary by the RIPE community.
[The following text will update section 5.1.2 in the RIPE Policy Document “IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy“, if the proposal reaches consensus.]
Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.
Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure.
Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.
Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. [Text removed]
The assessment criteria ‘number of End Users’ is arguably unambiguous and serves as one reasonable measure of the ‘size’ of an organisation. However, the term ‘extent of the organisation’s infrastructure’ is somewhat ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation. Even taking a dictionary definition of the term ‘extent’ to mean area, volume, scope, etc it is clear that again it is very much a measurement of ‘size’.
For many organisations (ISPs in particular) there is often a straightforward correlation between their ‘size’ and the amount of IPv6 address space they therefore require. However, many organisations have legitimate addressing requirements that arise from factors other than outright size alone and yet the current policy, as written, does not allow consideration of such requirements to be made.