[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carlos Friaças
cfriacas at fccn.pt
Fri Sep 22 13:52:14 CEST 2017
On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote: > Hi Carlos, > Hi, > This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for > new entrants in > this community, by trying to extend the time period until the runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout occurs, > and we can then > count how many new entrants did get a tiny portion of (new, never used before) IPv4 address space. > > > The current policy without this change is doing the same, preserving tiny resources (/22) for new entrants. > You are saying that there are some benefit and we cannot measure them now, but lets do it, am I right? > > > I'm saying there is an obvious benefit: accomodate more new entrants. > > Because an org is able to have/open multiple LIRs, the real new entrants number is not really easy to calculate :-) > > > My understanding from this proposal is that it just change the allocation size but an org is still able to have/open multi LIRs, Yes, the ability of having multiple LIRs is out of scope, regarding this proposal. According to the PDP, afaik, anyone can submit a new proposal about that. > If this proposal reach consensus, someone still can open four LIRs and > get the same amount of IP address as now. That's my understanding too. or five, or six, or seven, and so on... > The difference (from technical > point of view) is that we may have less entry in routing tables with an > /22 allocation This is not really true, because routing-wise a /22 allocation can originate 4x /24 announcements anyway. > but with this proposal we will have for sure 4x /24 entry > without gaining that much. Or not, if the same org manages to open two (or four) new LIRs and the two (or four) /24s are aggregatable. But the main goal here is not to preserve aggregability nor preventing the dfz from growing. Something that i expect from this proposal is buying out a bit more of time for those organizations which are not a LIR today. Regards, Carlos Friaças > > Regards, > > Arash > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Arash > > > > > > > > Arash > > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13:33, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris at googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 September 2017 at 12:43, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote: > > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC > > to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4 allocation > > directly from the RIPE NCC before. > > > > At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands? > > There?s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/. > > Tim > > > > > > > >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]