You are here: Home > Participate > Policy Development > Policy Proposals > Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4

You're looking at an older or unpublished version: 1

Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4

Summary of Proposal

Abandonment of the Minimum Allocation Size concept in the "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region" document, currently ripe-606.

 

Policy Text

[The following text will update sections 5.1 and 5.5 in the RIPE Policy Document “IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region”, if the proposal reaches consensus.]

a. Current policy text

"5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs

The RIPE NCC's minimum allocation size is /22.

Details of how to join the RIPE NCC [...]"

b. New policy text

"5.1 Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to LIRs

[]

Details of how to join the RIPE NCC [...]"

c. Current policy text

"5.5 Transfers of Allocations

[...] or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry System.

Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. The block that is to be re-allocated must not be smaller than the minimum allocation block size at the time of re-allocation.

Re-allocation must be reflected [...]"

d. New policy text

"5.5 Transfers of Allocations

[...] or otherwise through the Regional Internet Registry System.

Address space may only be re-allocated to another LIR that is also a member of the RIPE NCC. []

Re-allocation must be reflected [...]"

 

Rationale

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

  • The Minimum Allocation Size concept makes no sense any longer, in the light of the strict allocation size of only one (last) /22 per (new) LIR, it has lost its originally intended purpose of enforcing the RIPE NCC to hand out no less than 1024 IPv4 addresses per allocation.
  • The Minimum Allocation Size as a lower boundary appears to be artificial now, keeping it could be understood as the RIPE NCC to patronise LIRs in using their address space – whether it is PI or PA; see next two arguments.
  • The proposal would end incongruencies because it is currently not possible to convert PI assigned address space of LIRs into PA allocated address space for PI assignments smaller than a /22.
  • The proposal would enable the LIR-to-LIR transfer of PA allocated address space smaller than a /22.

b. Arguments opposing the proposal

  • It might be argued that abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4 could lead to very small allocations. However, whether such small allocations would be still usable for LIRs should be determined by the concerned LIRs and not by a RIPE policy: e.g. as an LIR, keeping address space as PI assigned for infrastructure purposes would equally make perfect sense as converting it into PA allocated to then transfer it away.

 

Get Involved

The Address Policy Working Group develops policies relating to the allocation and registration of Internet number resources (IPv4 and IPv6 addresses and ASNs) by the RIPE NCC and its members. Anyone with an interest in Internet numbering issues is welcome to observe, participate and contribute to the WG. To post a message to the list, send an email to address-policy-wg@ripe.net. Please note that only subscribers can post messages.

Please contact if you need more information.

Stay up to date!

Follow @PDO_RIPE_NCC on Twitter.