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

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.






-- 
Regards, Andy Davidson            +44 (0)20 7993 1700           www.netsumo.com
NetSumo Ltd,   Specialist networks consultancy for ISPs,    Whitelabel  
24/7 NOC
/* Opinions are my own and & may not constitute policy of any org I  
work for */