[address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - New Version Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - New Version Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - Clarification about the utilisation requirement for IXPs requesting an assignment larger a /24
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Steven Bakker
steven.bakker at ams-ix.net
Mon May 8 15:56:11 CEST 2023
On Thu, 2023-05-04 at 06:21 +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber via address- policy-wg wrote: > > The problems in section 5 can be fixed easily, but it depends on > > how the authors want to handle assignment upgrades / renumberings. > > I'd suggest either dropping the 1Y utilisation requirement to e.g. > > 40%, or else that if you reach e.g. 80% current usage, you qualify > > to receive an assignment of 2x the current, up to /22. Those > > figures are plucked out of the air btw. The point with them is that > > they are not 50%, which is obviously a magic number when the > > natural increase of assignment size would be to double the size of > > the block. > > The goal of this part is to minimize renumberings while avoiding > greedy requests. Dropping the one year requirement to 40% is > reasonable if you think 50% is too harsh ("magic numbers"). We can > incorporate this change. I believe that what Nick was getting at was that 50% is "magic" in the sense that it creates a problem: * a /24 has 254 usable addresses. * a /23 has 510 usable addresses -> half of that is 255. So, suppose you have used 230 addresses out of your /24. You apply for and get a /23 and happily renumber. Then, after one year, you have used 254 addresses. This is less than half of the /23 (510/2 = 255), so according to the rules you'd have to downgrade back to a /24 again. You can now no longer grow, unless you immediately apply for a /23 again. So we either live with this "bug" and trust that whoever has to perform evaluation is "reasonable", or we find a numbers that don't cause these kind of edge cases. Cheers, Steven -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20230508/b7242208/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - New Version Policy Proposal (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - Clarification about the utilisation requirement for IXPs requesting an assignment larger a /24
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]