[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

Michiel,


I support this proposal.

* Simple
* Deterministic
* Very little impact on final date for existing LIR (8 days earlier if we take the 2008 IPv4 address consumption in RIPE)
* Reduced impact on routing table size (+ fixed prefix length)
* Easy for RIPE NCC to implement.

Question : what about PI ?

Marc Neuckens
Belgacom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-
> admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Michiel Klaver
> Sent: 14 September 2009 15:16
> To: Sander Steffann; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2
>
> Sander Steffann wrote:
> > Hi Michiel,
> >
> >> I would suggest we wait until we hit the final /12 and assign those
> >> addresses as fixed /24 blocks only. Big enough for new entrants to setup
> >> their IPv4 network and communicate with the 'legacy' internet of today.
> >> Too small for the rest of us and force everyone to dive into the deep
> >> with IPv6.
> >
> > If I understand you correctly this would be something like proposed in
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-
> wg/2009/msg00720.html,
> > with a reserved /12 for initial allocations of a fixed /24 size.
> >
> > Or do you mean something different?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sander
> >
> >
>
>
> Hi Sander,
>
> that indeed is the same, except for the size of the reserved
> assignments. With a /12 divided into fixed /24 prefixes you will create
> a pool of 4096 available /24 blocks. Given the current RIPE LIR member
> count of 5000+ and still growing, that amount of 4096 /24 blocks should
> be sufficient for a number of years.
>
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Michiel Klaver
> IT Professional


**** DISCLAIMER ****
http://www.belgacom.be/maildisclaimer