[address-policy-wg] 2009-05 New Policy Proposal (Multiple IPv6 /32 Allocations for LIRs)

Hi Jerzy,

On 16/04/2009 1:11, "Jerzy Pawlus" <Jerzy.Pawlus at cyf-kr.edu.pl> wrote:

[...]

>>> How do you solve this at the moment iin IPv4-land ?
>> 
>> Good question. Isn't the normal answer to open a separate LIR for the
>> separate business unit?
> 
>   Your solution, although possible, has some drawbacks:
> 
>   It adds  administrative burden, this was discussed here.

True. I think that administrative burden would act as a restraint against
unnecessary additional allocations.

>   But it also will diminish the remaining unallocated IPv4 space.

How does it do that at a different rate than not opening a new LIR? While I
understand that the proposal requires a one-to-one relationship between IPv4
and IPv6 networks, my reading of the text was that the requirement was there
to ensure that a separate IPv6 network was required. If someone has opened a
new LIR then I suspect that separate test is not required.

>   I think we can modify your idea slightly. Let's assign
>   10 'scoring units' for a second and subsequent /32 not fulfilling HD-Ratio.
>   It will effectively move an LIR to a higher billing category.
>   This, plus requirement of seperate routing policy may convince people
>   to support the new policy.

While I agree that this proposal could have a negative financial impact on
the RIPE NCC I don't believe that we can change the charging scheme through
the policy development process.

Finally, if a network running an LIR closes the address space will naturally
be reclaimed after the RIPE NCC's due diligence process. This proposal seems
to put a burden on an LIR to remember to return space once it is not being
used. Experience suggests that resources get lost as people move around
between departments and companies. If the general concept is accepted I
think a strong regular review mechanism is required to ensure that we don't
leave a mess of unmanaged resources lying around in the RIPE database.

Regards,

Leo