Criteria for initial PA Allocation

Hi,

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:45:19PM -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> > > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who
> > > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
> > 
> > I disagree.  The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation.
[..]
> Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering*
> the minimum allocation size.

Sounds I misunderstood your point (it following the "irresponsibility"
claim it could be read as "initial size should be a /26" :-) ).

[..]
> > > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a
> > > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can
> > > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address
> > > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?
> > 
> > Yes.  Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to
> > those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there
> > are fewer of those.
> 
> Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate
> efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your
> opinion?

I'm not sure.  I feel that a /22 is a good value - it means "25% of
the /20", and is large enough (4 "class C") that people need to get a
feel for network planning, subnet structure and whatnot.  But I don't
have any hard feelings on this, maybe a /21 is better ("raise the
hurdle") or a /23 ("we should not be overly restrictive").

> > > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of
> > > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation
> > > from RIPE?
> > 
> > Yes.  If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into
> > the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network.
> 
> You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately
> from their upstream's aggregate. 

Hmmm, yes.  But otherwise, what good would it be to get their own
address space if they are not going to multi-home it -- and on the
other hand, *if* they are going to multi-home, what good would it do
them to hold address space that they can only use single-homed?

> I don't want to make such assumptions. 
> 
> If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed
> requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to
> have. 

Maybe, yes.  But then, I haven't yet met anyone that went LIR in the
last years that did *not* do it to get "address space they could
announce to whoever they like", which usually also meant "going
multi-homed sooner or later".  But this is only Germany :-)

> I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from
> one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help
> the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait
> queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?)

I don't think it will hit the wait queue, but it *will* increase the effort
required at audit time.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299