[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

Hi,

I've changed my email address in the list.

El 03/07/2014 17:38, Gert Doering escribió:
>
> I think from a community consensus building pov, we have had clear feedback
> that if this is to be considered as a policy at all, it needs to be fleshed
> out in much more specific detail, also taking the cons into account.
>
> As in:
>
>   - who will get extra address space?  exactly under which conditions?
New LIRs created after 14th of September 2012 will recieve extra address 
up to another /22 (in lesser chunks) if they can:
     - Prove they really need the space, not only looking at assignements
     - In the cases of dhcp, the lease time are set to minimum possible 
without saturating their networks with dhcp messages.
     - Prove they have IPv6 5 star ripeness, IPv6 provisioned and 
deployed from the core network to customer (customers with compatible 
equipment should be able to connect with IPv6)
>   - why is this helping?
Will help in giving time (determined by the LIR grow) to the transition 
from IPv4 to IPv6 to be the main protocol. In some cases it will give 
years, in others not so much but Im sure any time given will be 
appreciated. At this time, maybe 99% of new LIRs are not going to be big 
telcos with million customers so another 1024 address are giving they 
lot of time.
>   - what will be the consequences to routing table size, address pool,
>     newcomers to the market in 5, 10 years?
This will only affect to new LIRs who started after 14th of September 
2012 since they are the only ones having an unique allocation of /22 the 
address pool. I cant find how to see how many LIRs are being affected. 
The only graph I have found 
(https://labs.ripe.net/statistics/number-of-lirs) dont let me know the 
exact numbers, but there are arround 1.5k to 2k LIRs. Taking the highest 
number, 2.000 LIRs and taking in consideration all of them meet the 
requirements is 2,048M address.
Our current pool have arround 18M address, if all new LIRs from today 
request the 2 allocations thats makes the possibility of having arround 
8857 new LIRs.
Again, in the LIRs graph cant see it well but I think we have 1k LIRs 
year. Thats makes, in the "worst" of the cases, 8 years of available IP 
space without taking in count if IANA returns more space.
I dont really know how can affect the routing table if we reduce the 
minimun allocation to /23 or /24 (/24 seems to be auto discarded as Gert 
Doering said in previous emails) but I know there are lots of /23 
announces in routing tables so I think the impact is not going to be 
really high.
> Even with a very specific proposal on the table (which would not need to
> describe the specific paragraphs to be changed in the RIPE policy documents,
> just the very exact "rules" to be followed - think of it as an algorithm
> for people to follow), I'm not sure it will go anywhere, but it would at
> least address some of the feedback given so far.
>
> I do not think further comments basically repeating what has been said
> before will change the situation.

Thanks Gert for stopping that. I really appreciate it, even as I started 
it by mistake.
Hope I answered your questions in a good way.

Please, I did quick maths with this, Im really busy today and for the 
next week, but If any of you see I have made a mistake in any number, 
please feel free to correct it.
Also, feel free to make any changes.

Kind Regards,

-Daniel