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

Hello!

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:07:47AM +0200, Gert Doering 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...

<snip>

Keeping in mind IPv4 runout I see no reasons why we should force LIR
to receive more address space then he need/requested. I think it is
no matter why LIR need such tiny block, he is free to run own network
as he want.

May be we should add an extra text to this proposal which will require 
renumbering if additional allocation is requested and all allocations
size below some threshold. It should prevent unnecessary GRT grow.


If /21 limitation shifts to /24, NCC IPRAs will get additional option
to force PI applicant become a member. It is negative impact of
proposal, I think.

 
-- 
Dmitry Kiselev