DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)

[resent after it got filtered]

Dear all,

So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any
comments before I formally submit it?

Best,

Remco


Number:
(assigned by the RIPE NCC)
Policy Proposal Name:
 Allow smaller initial allocations
Author:

name: Remco van Mook
email: remco.vanmook at eu.equinix.com
organisation: Equinix
Proposal Version: 0.1
Submission Date: July 17, 2009
Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy
Proposal Type: modify
Policy Term: Permanent
Summary of proposal: Allow new LIRs to get a smaller initial allocation than
the standard at their specific request
Policy text:
Current (if modify):

5.1 First Allocation
The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21.

New:

5.1 First Allocation
The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21. Consequently, the initial
allocation size is /21. However, at the explicit request of the member, a
smaller initial allocation up to a /24 can be made. In those cases, the RIPE
NCC shall not make efforts to keep adjacent address space available for
possible future allocation requests.

Rationale:

Arguments supporting the proposal
Potential LIRs are currently forced to request PI space if they do not
require a /21 of address space and want to contribute to the conservation of
available global IPv4 resources. This policy change removes that obstacle
and reduces the amount of requests for PI space for that purpose. The text
looks a bit awkward because this is the only place where the minimum
allocation size is specified and I wanted to keep that in - the minimum now
being a general rule instead of a hard limit.

Arguments opposing the proposal
This policy change arguably increases fragmentation. On the other side, PI
space assignments are made regardless of the minimum allocation size so the
chances of actually increasing fragmentation are minimal. People do
filtering based on minimum allocation sizes (I've not seen it in real life
but that's the ever-returning argument) but that can be avoided using the
ranges normally used for assigning PI for undersized allocations.



On 17-07-09 14:02, "Sascha Lenz" <slz at baycix.de> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Remco van Mook schrieb:
>> 
>> Hi Mark,
>> 
>> It is heartening to see that your drive to conservation of IPv4 space
>> alone is pushing you to put all this effort in to get PI space. I¹m sure
>> we can suggest a policy change approved that would set the standard
>> initial allocation to /21 but allow for smaller allocations up to /24 if
>> specifically requested by the new LIR.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ... apart from the fact that i don't think the whole community agrees
> that we need any form of IPv4 conservation anyways :-) ... i think this
> would be the apropriate step here, yes.
> 
> I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because
> even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i
> also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other
> simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so).
> 
> 
> --
> ========================================================================
> = Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
> = Network Design & Operations                                          =
> = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
> ========================================================================
> 
> 

------ End of Forwarded Message



This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately.  Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.