[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignment Size)

Hi,

Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
> 
>> This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI
>> assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a
>> multihoming End User.
>>
>>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html
>>
>> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
>> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 26 September 2006.
> 
> Hello. This proposal is proposing the same things I was arguing in my
> email, so I second this.
> 
> I have a question though, the proposal includes the notion of "major
> issue", perhaps this could be specified a bit more? Or is it clear how
> this would be interpreted by a hostmaster processing an application,
> that if the customer adds "I need to advertise this on the public
> internet" it will automatically be known that a at least a /24 is needed?

i think it's better to be that unspecific then to put in too tight
wording - it's a policy, it needs months to be changed again later.
Hostmasters at RIPE usually have a fair amount of wisdom :-)

As stated earlier, I have no problems with wasting IPv4 address space
anymore (there is IPv6, and most projections suggest, there's enough
IPv4 space for decades to come, too) - so no problems with the change.

Although one should think about what happens if /24 gets "not routable"
due to the upcoming next round of memory restrains in BGP routers.
Is it /23 then as next minimum?
I didn't really get any comments on this a week ago on the discussion
leading to this proposal, so i assume, it's not an issue to think about
right now for most people?

. o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing
table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment
relevant..)

-- 
========================================================================
= Sascha Lenz                  SLZ-RIPE          slz at baycix.de         =
= Network Operations                                                   =
= BayCIX GmbH, Landshut                  * PGP public Key on demand *  =
========================================================================