DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)

Agree, i've always treated such requests from PI Applicants as valid "infrastructure" purpose, 
NCC have always agreed, surely this is a non-issue?


------------------------------------------------
David Freedman
Group Network Engineering 
Claranet Limited
http://www.clara.net



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net on behalf of Gert Doering
Sent: Wed 7/22/2009 10:07
To: Dmitry Kiselev
Cc: Gert Doering; Remco van Mook; Address Policy Working Group
Subject: Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly  complicated when requesting PI space)
 
Hi,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:48:56AM +0300, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:
> > The network that started this topic ("we have 10 locations that need a
> > /24 each") is not your typical *LIR* in the first place, and might really
> > be better suited with PI /24s - as that's what they are doing: connecting
> > "independent locations" to the Internet.  They are not doing LIR business.
> > 
> > A *LIR* needs a reasonable amount of address space, so I really fail to
> > see why someone would want a /24 PA instead of a /24 PI... (which costs
> > less, and has the same impact on the routing table).
> 
> PI does not allow end user assignments in it. In my opinion it is
> good reason for allow /24 allocations.

Well.  I can't really see a scenario where I would assign addresses to 
end users and would be happy with a /24 allocation - our end users get
assignments up to a /23 from us...

I think one of the focal points here is the question on whether 'giving
a hosted web server an IP address' is 'assigning address space to end
users'.  

The boundary cases ("the customer has a virtual web presence and not 
even a dedicated IP address" and "the customer is running their own web 
farm and the ISP routes a /24 towards their firewall") are pretty clear 
- but there is lots of space for different way to do web server hosting
in between (managed servers, rented servers, real servers, vmware 
entities, vserver/jailed virtual servers, ...)


The IPv4 PI policy currently defines the transfer networks between an ISP
network and an access customer as "part of the ISP infrastructure" - so
if you give /32s to DSL end customers, you could run your whole ISP on
a PI block (but you can't give one of these customers a /30 to use behind
their router).  Which is a bit funny indeed.


People have argued to remove the PA/PI distinction.  I don't think that
this is the right way (due to the fact that PA allocations necessarily need
to be more liberal than PI assignments), but maybe we need to loosen up
PI rules a bit, as in:

 "Using addresses from a PI block to number other parties' devices is
  permitted as long as these devices are connected to the same network,
  documentation about the usage can be presented to the RIPE NCC, and
  full responsibility for the addresses (abuse handling etc) is done by
  the PI holder".


(After all, one of the reasons why we document end user assignments in a
public database is to be able to contact a person feeling responsible for
troubleshooting and abuse handling)

"same network" is important to make it crystal clear that "get a chunk
of PI and sell off smaller bits to 3rd parties connecting at random to
other ISPs" is not the desired intention.


Now come and flame me :-)

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090722/923fc486/attachment.html>