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

On the RIPE Website regarding the Ripe Community

"RIPE (Réseaux IP Européens) is a collaborative forum open to all parties interested in wide area IP networks. The objective of RIPE is to ensure the administrative and technical co-ordination necessary to enable the operation of the Internet within the RIPE region."

I believe the RIPE community has a requirement to set policy to ensure the IP's which RIPE NCC handout based on need, meet the administrative and technical requirements to be usable on the internet, and if that means a /24 is the smallest IPv4 space which can't be aggregated is allowed to be handed out, due to standard industry practice of filtering anything smaller than a /24 or if it means we influence standard practice to have smaller IPv4 space not filtered and increasing the size of the routing tables, I think we need to provide RIPE NCC with clear guidelines to help them meet the communities objective.



Keith

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Niels Bakker
Sent: 17 July 2009 17:45
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

* Keith.Nolan at premiereglobal.ie (Nolan, Keith) [Fri 17 Jul 2009, 13:06 CEST]:
>I believe the proposal has great merit and needs further discussion, and 
>is directly related to my email on the 12th July.
>
>
>"The other issue with suggesting that we use PI Space instead of PA
>Space where we will not be in a position to aggregate is the PI
>Assignment which would be approved would be less than a /24 (as we don't
>need 128 addresses for Multi-homed BGP Peering), therefore wouldn't be
>routable on the Internet (Policy proposal 2006-05 refers to this issue
>and suggests the smallest PI Space should be /24) So the only way to
>implement Multi-Homed BGP Routing from Multiple locations which don't
>need a full /24 network is to become a LIR and create smaller /25 or /26
>inetnum's with larger /24 route objects from your PA Space. And since
>this is a workaround, just like a company stretching the truth about
>their IP requirements when applying for a PI Space to get a full /24,
>surely a LIR should be allowed to create inetnum's for a /24 when they
>also need to create a /24 route object."
>
>And while all transits may not route a /24 IP Range, the Tier1 transits 
>we are paying for transit do route /24 networks, but are filtering 
>anything smaller.

The RIPE NCC hands out addresses based on a need for addresses, not on 
a need to satisfy other parties' policies.  This is a good thing and it 
should stay that way.


	-- Niels.

-- 
<BitKat> zo weten we nog steeds niet of de steganosaurus wel echt bestaan heeft