[address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA allocation size

Dear WG,
I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has been presented
and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and proposed to the list as a formal
proposal I would like to declare consensus on this issue.

There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some critical comments
that it is my understanding has been clearified. (This proposal does not
affect the payment scedule or membership structure and it does not affecting
the PI policy).

With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline was set for
the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for objections to the process on
this  matter. If I receive objections I propose to set a I month comment
period before calling for closure on this matter. 

Best Regards,
Hans Petter Holen
Address Policy WG Chair

|-----Original Message-----
|From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net 
|[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering
|Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM
|To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
|Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of 
|initial PA allocation size
|
|Hi,
|
|this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, 
|and we had it on the address policy working group meeting 
|(presented by me).
|
|I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to 
|present it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into 
|the policy.
|
|
|PROPOSAL:
|
|  * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from
|    a /20, as of today, to a /21.
|    (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial allocation,
|    they can get a larger address block.  This will not be changed).
|
|  * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated
|    address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation"
|
|
|The motivation for that is that under the current policy, 
|startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get 
|an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or 
|bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate 
|immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space.
|
|To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as 
|a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for 
|their own PA again.
|The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely 
|that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table 
|(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it 
|encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed 
|to third parties, i.e., LIR customers).
|
|
|The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting 
|address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with 
|a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21).  The wastage 
|would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to 
|fill the initial /21.
|A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" 
|would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the 
|conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in 
|RIPE land today.
|
|A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt 
|their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) 
|where these allocations are made from.  So the RIPE NCC needs 
|to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance.
|
|Gert Doering
|        -- NetMaster
|--
|Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  
|57785 (56883)
|
|SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
|Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
|80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
|