[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

On 27/07/2009 17:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
> Right now, the policies for PA and PI are the same: if you qualify for a /28
> of PA then you qualify for a /28 of PI. But if you change the policy so that
> when you qualify for a /28 of PA then you qualify for a /24 of PI then PI
> space becomes much more attractive because you get more space and it is
> independent of your ISP.

I deliberately left this out of the calculation, and perhaps phrased things 
slightly sloppily.  It's a know unknown, or perhaps an unknown unknown, to 
borrow a cliche.

Besides the two issues are still separate.  Qualifying for /28 PA is a 
matter of just having 8 internet-connected machines within 1 year and the 
ability to configure a default route on each machine.  Qualifying for /24 
PI would be a matter of having 8 internet connected machines, a router, an 
ASN, more than one upstream transit partner or a bunch of peering partners 
and enough in-house or consultancy clue to make this all work.

It's not rocket science, of course.  But it does have a cost and it would 
be interesting to compare the cost of this scenario to the cost associated 
with becoming a LIR and requesting a minimum allocation (if all you're 
looking for is routable address space).

> I don't know how to quantify this and maybe I'm wrong anyway. Nonetheless, I
> think this should be considered as a potential risk for a policy that allows
> /24 PI assignments based solely on a phrase as vague as "when routing is a
> major issue".

Yes, it's a risk, and should be noted explicitly in any proposal.  I don't 
doubt that it would cause greater uptake of PI address assignment requests 
- and this is one of the reasons that this is not a pretty solution to the 
problem.

On a side note, I wonder whether the lower number of requests for the year 
until may was due to the new contractual requirements.

Nick