[address-policy-wg] 2013-06 New Policy Proposal (PA/PI Unification IPv6 Address Space)

Hi Dan,

thank you for the great feedback.

Please see some of my comments inline.

On 10/6/13 1:17 PM, Dan Luedtke wrote:
> Hi APWG,
>
>> 5.1.2 Initial Allocation Size
>> Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to the LIR have a minimum allocation size of a /32 and may be up to a /29 with no additional documentation required.
>> Allocations made by the RIPE NCC to the End User have a minimum allocation size of a /32.
> RIPE NCC reserves a /29 for every /32 allocation, right?
> So even End Users would "occupy" a /29 even if many of them would
> forever be satisfied with a /48?
> This is god news for the routing table as only prefixes size are going
> to change if End Users grow their networks. (Unlike in IPv4, were
> grows often implied new routes popping up).

Well, the RIPE NCC reserves two or three extra bits. So, if you get a 
/48, they will reserve a /45, if you get a /32, they reserve a /29, if 
you get a /29, they will reserve a /26.

And indeed, the growth of the routing table will be kept low if every 
time someone will need an additional allocation, the RIPE NCC will just 
extend the current one with 1-3 bits.

Additionally, if someone will specifically ask for a /48, the RIPE NCC 
will continue making the small allocation and the 2-3 bits reservation, 
it's not like.. whenever you ask for a /48 the RIPE NCC will reserve a 
/32 or /29.

>
>
> Elvis Velea wrote:
>> Creating different levels/limits will complicate the policy again and our aim was to make it as simple as possible.
> I like the proposals simplicity and I support the proposal from what I
> have read so far.

I am glad, I see that the general feeling is that everyone likes it for 
being simple and there are just a few comments, mostly on the same topics.

We have worked through a few iterations to get this proposal to be this 
simple. Some things may still be fixed for the second version of this 
proposal which I think will be published after we compile all the 
feedback from this list and the RIPE Meeting.

>
> Tore Anderson wrote:
>> Then you would have only one path and no confusion:
>>    RIR[RIPE NCC] -> LIR -> End User
> I would support this if there is a way to eliminate the distinction of
> PI/PA in IPv4 too. In fact, with the initial proposal End Users are
> becoming IR in the moment they hand out their first address to a
> customer. The question is: How can we back off from those who *love*
> their Sponsoring LIR for doing all the "international RIPE stuff" and
> those who are eager to share some of their address space with
> friends/neighbors/customers? There should not arise any new
> requirement from a change like this for those who just want their
> network numbered without having to deal with international contracts
> but there should be new options for those who like to do IR things.
> RPKI, for example, is something the more tech-savy End Users are
> missing today.
>

It would be difficult, some End users still want to be independent from 
a particular LIR, by having only one path, and after looking at my 
crystal ball, I would see the following problems:

a. RIPE NCC would allocate only to the LIR and the LIR could keep the 
end user captive - stay in a contract with me or renumber your network
b. LIRs may start to de-aggregate their allocations up to a level that 
the global routing table may explode and we will really have nothing to 
do against it
c. we may see anti-competitive laws or such, because only LIRs will be 
able to get addresses from the RIPE NCC and therefore, LIRs will be able 
to make their own rules on who gets what. You may be forced to become an 
LIR if you need addresses.

> Nick Hilliard wrote:
>> So how could you convince the existing ipv6 PI holders that the cost
>> increase from €50/year to LIR membership fees would be worth it?
> Speaking for me, not possible. Other small enterprises probably think the same.
> I think we should provide some strong incentive to become a LIR
> eventually. If the price jumps from 50EUR/yr to 1800EUR/yr business
> will ask what it gets for the extra money.

Forcing everyone to become an LIR is going to be difficult. We have 
received some numbers from Andrea (thanks A.) and will propose some 
different discussion points during the RIPE Meeting.

>
>
> BTW, I suggest renaming End User to SIR (Sponsored Internet Registry).
> A SIR could re-allocate its address space and/or just number their
> enterprise network with it.

During one of the iterations of this policy proposal I had the idea of 
PIR (Portable Internet Registry). However, the idea was not very well 
received by the co-authors.

It's definition was supposed to be:

"A Portable Internet Registry is an IR which can request (via a 
Sponsoring LIR) an allocation from the RIR. The PIR sub-allocates 
address space to the users of the network services that it provides. "

Considering the current feedback, I think we do need to define the 
additional layer we add to the chain.

The PIR or SIR may not be good enough. If we do define the SIR/PIR, what 
do we do with the entity receiving a sub-allocation from an LIR, this 
entity will also be allowed to sub-allocate based on the proposed 
policy. What would we call that entity then?

cheers,
elvis