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

On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 06:55:36AM -0800, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2006, at 2:33 AM, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >Could I suggest an alternative based on experience in dealing with new
> >LIRs on the ground?  Many new LIRs are smaller operations with
> >relatively small address space usage, and simply wouldn't get to  
> >send in
> >a huge number of assignment requests within the first 6 months.
> 
> This I agree with.
> 
> >  Because
> >of this, they're just not going to get the hang of RIPE's address  
> >space
> >administrative requirements.
> 
> This I don't.
> 
> The RIPE NCC has found that less than 5% of requests need anything  
> more than a comment from them because the person making the request  
> met all of the administrative and policy requirements. LIRs seem to  
> gain this experience pretty fast and they can't make truly large  
> mistakes because the slow start policy restricts the size of LIRs'  
> first few allocations. New LIRs don't really have very much space to  
> waste, so there is relatively little risk.
> 
> >  Would it not therefore be more sensible to
> >automatically increase the AW after either a set number of well-formed
> >assignment requests were sent into RIPE?
> 
> That's basically what happens now: evidence based AW raises. It makes  
> AW growth a slow process that involves LIRs sending in huge numbers  
> of request forms that don't really need any input from the RIPE NCC  
> staff.
> 
> Looking at slide 10 of Filiz's recent presentation at the Region  
> Meeting in Manama, Bahrain, we can see that PA Requests account for  
> about 60% of the requests handled:
> 
> http://www.ripe.net/meetings/regional/manama-2006/presentations/ 
> stats_policyupdate.pdf
> 
>   - or -
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/yjushp
> 
> Relaxing this policy lowers the administrative burden for the vast  
> majority of LIRs while the RIPE NCC retains the ability to select the  
> size of an LIR's allocation, so limiting the damage they can do. The  
> RIPE NCC also has an explicit mandate to audit LIRs (ripe-170), and  
> were this proposal accepted, they would be able to expand this role,  
> providing additional, targeted support for those few LIRs that need it.
> 
Hi Leo,all,

If the hostmasters are spending to much time on doing simple requests then
they might not just show initiative enough to raise the assignment window
when a LIR behaves 'good'.

Having said that, I can still support that the first step in the AW is
from 0 to a /21 in one go.

I however do have problems with doing it automaticly after half a year. I
still think it is good that a LIR is helped (not controlled, helped) by
having the first requests go through the hostmaster team.

Now if you take that into account, a big ISP that for example opens a new
LIR for a new country will be annoyed the first half year, while for a
startup company that is really still starting up and not doing requests
yet, half a year might be to short.

So I really think that raising the AW to the /21 should be hostmaster
initiated. If they don't do it quickly enough, that is an internal problem
that should be handled with for example training. A suggestion might be
to do an audit every 3 months on all LIR's that still have an AW of 0.

Regards,

Andre Koopal

-- 

Andre Koopal
EMEA Server & Service Management - Int ITSD

Verizon Business
H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 123
1096 AM Amsterdam
Netherlands

VNET:   711 6990
tel :   +31 (0)20 711 6990
fax :   +31 (0)20 711 2519

Verizon and MCI are now operating as Verizon Business !

This e-mail is strictly confidential and intended only for use by the addressee 
unless otherwise indicated.