[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:

>
> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>>> Since 2005-01-01, 128 assignments were made of less than /24 and  
>>> 3934 of exactly /24.  These figures do not look to me like the  
>>> results of 3934 honest assignment application forms.
>>>
>>> Turning this around, if the minimum PI assignment size were  
>>> increased from /32 to /24, there would have been 23k extra PI  
>>> addresses out of 5493760 total PI addresses assigned between  
>>> 2005-01-01 and 2009-05.  That's about 0.4%.
>>
>> I agree that the amounts in question are trivial and the benefits  
>> to the community (at least for the ten minutes or so that there is  
>> unallocated ipv4 left...) will be appreciated by small orgs looking  
>> for the benefits of multihoming - Nick's words are right as usual.
>>
>> However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum  
>> assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be  
>> the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks  
>> are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced  
>> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller  
>> range.  But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial.
>
>
> The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part  
> of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to  
> make /23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their  
> original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ?

If you want my opinion, no.

There is never a guarantee that any assignment will be routable  
anywhere and there is no way to make such guarantees.

Some time ago, IPv4 filtering blocks longer than /20 was fairly  
common. In fact, when ARIN passed 2002-3 (its micro-assignment policy  
for multi-homed networks), that was still the case. While there was  
not a land-rush to claim smaller blocks, there was adoption even  
though the recipients had to deal with this, and over time it all  
seems to have sorted itself out adequately.

Regards
Marshall

>
> Groet,
>
> MarcoH
>
>