[members-discuss] [EXTERNAL] Re: New Charging Scheme

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 04:11:58PM +0000, Patterson, Richard (Sky Network Services (SNS)) wrote:
> Sorry to hijack this thread, but I'd disagree with the "policies are working nicely" comment, right now I'm really struggling to get RIPE to accept my request for a larger-than-/29 allocation.

People always bitch when NCC hostmasters ask questions about their nice
addressing plans.  Usually when then numbers are right people get their
addresses in the end.

So, RIPE-707 5.1.2 says

"LIRs may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by
 submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If
 so, the allocation size will be based on the number of users, the
 extent of the LIR infrastructure, the hierarchical and geographical
 structuring of the LIR, the segmentation of infrastructure for
 security and the planned longevity of the allocation"

which, for user assignments of a /48, should be possible if you can
demonstrate more than 100.000 customers and a reasonably structured
network with internal aggregation levels.  But this is something better
discussed in the address-policy list, or possible in private mails
among AP chairs and IPRAs if you want.


It's not nullifying my argument, though - people have received large
address blocks (and quite a number of them), *and we're not close to
running out of IPv6 space*.  The latter part was the relevant bit in
the context of the statement I quoted.

> The simple math that a /29 only provides room for ~500K subscribers, when coupled with RIPE's own RIPE-690 BCOP `recommendation of /48 PD assignments, apparently isn't sufficient justification.
> 
> I agree with your comment that the point of IPv6 isn't to "conserve!  conserve!", however in my experience it seems that RIPE does not agree with us.  RIPE is still placing far too much pressure on the LIR to justify the network design and geographical topology of their network, citing RIPE-707 Section 3.5.

"RIPE" neither agrees nor disagrees with anything.  "The RIPE NCC" might
disagree, but usually it's a question of proper arguments.

The large assignments to DTAG, de.government, etc., didn't happen "just so"
either, but required quite a bit of documentation and showing numbers.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/members-discuss/attachments/20190121/e0513dca/attachment.sig>