[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Scott Leibrand
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon Mar 24 19:24:31 CET 2014
Would this proposal allow end users to request the transfer of a single IPv4 /32? Or is that prevented by RIPE requiring parties to a transfer to be LIRs? I am less worried about LIRs doing something stupid, but if it were allowed, I would guess that some end users would attempt to use /32 transfers the same way they use phone number portability. IMO it might be better to preserve some sort of minimum transfer size. Dropping it to a /24 (or farther) would make sense to me. Going all the way to /32 seems unnecessary and a bit risky, unless there are other good safeguards in place to ensure that any entities transferring a /32 are really in a position to route it themselves, and aren't just trying to impose the routing externality on the rest of the global table (and blaming someone else when their IPv4 /32 announcement isn't accepted everywhere). -Scott On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Elvis Velea <elvis at velea.eu> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I was just about to make the same comments :) > > I support the proposal although I would have proposed a minimum /24 (as it > is in the other regions). > > However, leaving the decision in the hands of the operators sounds good as > well. > > cheers, > elvis > > > On 24/03/14 16:05, Rob Evans wrote: > >> http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01 >>> >> Overall I think this is a good thing, but I wonder if there is a reason >> for leaving 5.4 (minimum sub-allocation size) as-is? >> >> If we open the door to transfer prefixes smaller than a /24, should >> sub-allocation of them be prevented? >> >> The routing side of me, of course, might consider the alternative of >> clamping the transfers at /24 too, but perhaps that should just be left >> for consenting adults to negotiate between themselves. >> >> Cheers, >> Rob >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140324/aaf03aff/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]