[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)

Hello,
one thing should be considered here - this proposal in section 3b
states, that minimum allocation sizes for the relevant /8 blocks will be
updated if necessary.

There're a lot of ranges with /21 longest prefix now. Some people have
filters in accordance to (currently) RIPE-510 document. This may be
source of some operational troubles, if longest prefixes will be changed
frequently - as filters will have to be updated in some networks.
There's no such requirement these days (only new prefixes need to be added).

I'll rather see no changes in terms of "allowing" longer prefixes in
other subnets. Changes here will more likely help some people
deaggregate their prefixes in global table and only few prefixes will be
announced rightly. Aggregation should be one of major goals, and even
RIPE cannot enforce it, it at least should help here (and RIPE-510 is
helpfull). This proposal goes against this goal sometimes, I think.

Last /8 provides quite huge number of /22 to cover future requests
long-term. I think, that returned space should be reserved/used for
covering potential request for more than 1024 IP addresses in one block
- as we cannot imagine future these days, and someone can have good
reasons to obtain larger address space... and if will be some addresses
available, I don't see any reason to reject the request.

Due similar reasons - I don't support section 4 of new proposal
(multiple allocations up to an equivalent of a /22). This will also
cause changes in RIPE-510 and this will simplify address space
deaggregation for many "bad guys".

So, instead of applying "last /8 policy" to returned space, reserving
returned space as we have reserved /16 from last /8 seems to be better
option for me (and potentially serve assignments like /21). Current
policies used for reusing returned space are sufficient and these can be
applied anytime.

Last /8 should be applied ONLY to last /8. And aggregation should be
always keeped in mind, when some change in address policy is proposed.

I don't support this proposal and I suggest changes in it mentioned above.

With regards,
Daniel


On 05/20/2011 12:11 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
> 
> A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-509, "IPv4 Address Allocation
> and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now
> available for discussion.
> 
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/
> 
> We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 17 June 2011.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Emilio Madaio
> Policy Development Officer
> RIPE NCC
>