[address-policy-wg] Temporary Internet Assignments policy

* nick at inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) [Sun 16 Sep 2012, 21:10 CEST]:
[..]
>There are a couple of options for dealing with this:
>
>1.  specify new time limits (e.g. receive one month in advance, hand 
>back one week after)

I understand that the choice for a /13 to set aside for this was based 
on the ability to fulfill all temporary IP address space requests.  
Extending the time period would make this cramped, I presume.


>2.  don't specify time limits but allow the IPRAs to have discretion 
>on what seems sensible to them

This sounds good on paper but will in practice just lead to requestors 
going "But you gave them <points at otherconf> a month, why me only a 
week?!" which is good for neither IPRAs nor applicants.  In effect 
it'll end up being just like a less overt #1.


>3.  keep the current time limits but ask the RIPE NCC whether it 
>would be possible to implement a booking system.  I.e. your 
>assignment would only be active during the requested time period, 
>but you would know well in advance what the options were.

This isn't a good choice either but may be the least-bad of all three.

Having the ASN available earlier would help somewhat with ensuring 
routability as IRRdb's can be updated; having the IP blocks known 
will help too, even if they're not yet assigned.


>If anyone has opinions on which of these they prefer (or any other 
>suggestions on how to deal with the issue), can you either post here 
>or let me know off-list and I'll summarise at RIPE65 in advance of 
>posting a policy amendment for ripe-526 shortly after the meeting?

Lengthening the lease time for temporary ASNs separately from IP 
number resources should be an option.

A hobby gives me a vested interest in #1 so rather foolishly I hope 
more space can be made available to satisfy community needs, but it 
would already help to have the ASN and know other numbers earlier.


	-- Niels.

--