This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Tore Anderson
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Tue May 8 18:02:15 CEST 2012
* Tore Anderson > I don't make the claim that these numbers necessarily are meaningful or > even relevant to the discussion, though. You be the judge of that... Perhaps it is more interested in looking at how things have gone in the APNIC region so far; They started delegating from their last /8 block 386 days ago. Since then they've handed out 1,048,320 addresses from 103/8, or 6.25% of it. Of those 1,048,320 addresses, 173,312 (16.53%) were assigned, and 875,008 (83.47%) were allocated. Out of a total 1,253 delegations, 361 (28.81%) were assignments, while 892 (71.19%) were allocations. (I've disregarded their debogon prefix delegations. Also last /8 delegations made from outside 103/8, if any, aren't counted.) I'm not familiar enough with APNIC's policies regarding the definition of "assignment" vs "allocation" to know whether or not this is relevant to this discussion or not, but if they're roughly the same as in the RIPE region, the APNIC numbers seems to me to indicate that allowing assignments from the last /8 will not dramatically reduce its longevity. Which in turn is enough for me to support allowing PI assignments under our last /8 policy. It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the APNIC region both allocations and assignments appear to be capped at a /22. 2012-04 proposes capping PI at a /24, which I suppose may further diminish concerns that allowing PI in the first place will make the last /8 go away too quickly. On the other hand, limiting PI at /24 but PA at /22 would still cause the effect of forcing organisations to become LIRs, if the organisation's requirement cannot be fulfilled with a /24 only. That's kind of pointless, if the only assignment they'll ever make as LIRs is to their own organisation. So I think it would be even better if we did like APNIC did and capped both PI and PA at a /22 - that way, all the internet organisations in the region gets to have life rafts of the exact same size. (But perhaps they should be equally priced also...) Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]