You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: PI & 1st allocation policy

  • To: leo vegoda < >
    PI Policy Task Force < >
  • From: Hans Petter Holen < >
  • Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:47:03 +0200
Hi leo,
to add my initial thinking:


                        % ----- Proposal ----- %

1. Reduce the minimum allocation size from /20 to /21
No big objections to this - I may be a good idea to make the process of "growing" the initial allocation to a larger allocation a bit more transparent and well documented. This is not necessarily directly related but it could be a concern to keep the number of allocations down (for routing and for other arbitrary limitations of software.

2. Remove the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the
allocated     address space (a /23 in this case)
This basically brings us back to the way it was in the RIPE region - no entry barrier for small ISPs (which I think is a good thing) It is however different from at least the ARIN policy were one needs to demonstrate prior usage.

3. No longer assign PI (Portable) address space to End Users
Sounds reasonable, with the different discussions on PI and micro-allocations over time - it is clear to me that the only infrastructure elements needing portable IP addresses may be the root name servers.

Multi homing should be handled differently.

4. End Users requiring a portable address block could become an LIR and
receive     a /21 allocation.

The question then is: what is the criteria to become an LIR ?
- none (the need for IP addresses ?)
- something else ? (ref 2 above ?) Clearly the only thing the RIPE NCC can evaluate is prior use or said intent to use some address space.

Altogether I think this proposal makes much sense - give and take the exact size of the initial allocation and the immediate need criteria.

-hph




  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>