[address-policy-wg] ripe-587, Temporary Internet Number Assignment Policies

Hi Gert, Randy and Leo,

Thank you for dedicating attention and time to ripe-587, as this policy 
became more topical since the IPv4 run-out.

The requests for temporary assignments are always evaluated by the RIPE 
NCC on a case-by-case basis, and the current text of the policy presents 
some challenging aspects for the approval.

Requests related to conferences and events generally include a 
documentation that can easily show the utilisation of the addresses and 
the time of the assignment. Sometimes there is some time pressure due to 
last-minute submissions and there were few occasions when organisers 
would have preferred more than the policy limit of two months, but 
overall this part of the policy is sufficiently clear for the RIPE NCC.

The requests for research and testing are posing challenges for the 
approval against the required address utilisation (50%) stated in the 
policy, when this cannot be reached due to the nature of the 
research/experiment/test.

We also receive requests where the temporary assignment purpose appears 
to be part of a standard network setup as the test/experiment/research 
is motivated with the need of configuring and testing a protocol or a 
feature that is new to the requester's network while being already 
widely used in other ones. Many of these requests come from the 
requester's interpretation of the policy.

While the policy cannot cover all cases, a review of the technical 
requirements, time limits and address utilisation would be beneficial to 
facilitate the RIPE NCC’s assessment of different requests.

Kind regards,
Angela

-- 
Angela Dall'Ara
RIPE NCC Policy Officer



On 26/01/2022 18:32, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 09:33:40AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote:
>> ok, i did it again, tried to fit a square peg in a round hole.  while
>> the immediate problem is past, thanks to the ncc reg folk, i fear that
>> we could benefit from thinking a bit more about $subject.
>>
>> for a research experiment, we wanted eight or a dozen routable, i.e.
>> /24, prefixes which we would announce from various places in the
>> topology.  each /24 would have one pingable address, let's assume .42.
> This is a tough nut.
>
> I can totally see what you do, and understand what space you need, and
> for which times.
>
> OTOH, I can totally see the NCC being worried about people claiming
> "experiments!  and I need a review!" and running their ISP for a year
> on temporary space - and with the argument "I want a dozen routable
> /24s", you can get quite some ISP work done.
>
> [..]
>> i am considering a policy proposal in this space; but want to learn what
>> others see and think, and to see if it is worth the time and effort.
> I want research and conferences and all these things to be possible,
> with temporary address space, and policies to be fairly liberal for
> "those good things".
>
> The NCC needs checklist-able items to say "this is okay" and "that is
> way too much space, you do not need a /16 for 6 months to run a
> conference with 1000 attendees for a week.
>
> How to codify this?  Dunno.
>
> Marco, Angela - what's your take on this ("feedback from RS" time)?
>
> Gert Doering
>