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

Hi again Tero,

On 9/27/13 12:25 PM, Tero Toikkanen wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> In general I support the direction of this proposal.
>

thank you :)

> I have already mentioned some of my observations on other ongoing conversations, but here are a couple more:
>
> 5.2.3
> "results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it"
> With larger blocks this seems a bit drastic to me. I.e. if a large corporation needs a new /32, but already has 4 of them, they will automagically get 4 /32s more. I assume this is to enable aggregation, but without making large reservations in the address pool for each End User, it probably wouldn't work for that purpose. In order to assess how reasonable this clause is, we would need to know how addresses are allocated and from where. I my opinion aggregation = good, large reservations for every single End User with a /32 = bad.
>

This sentence is part of the current policy and has work find until now. 
Actually, I think that the RIPE NCC has not had (any?) that many 
additional allocation requests to actually test this part of the policy.

As far as I know, currently, the RIPE NCC allocates /32s to each LIR (up 
to a /29) and reserves 3 bits. I believe they make the same reservation 
to current PI users, no matter what is the size of that assignment.

So, I think that if the RIPE NCC continues with the same practices, part 
of your question has been answered.

Regarding the second part, I agree that an LIR (due to mergers, 
acquisitions, takeovers, etc) may end up with multiple IPv6 allocations.
These are rare cases and may not involve too many LIRs.

And even if an LIR has 4 /29s, requesting an additional allocation will 
mean that for each of the /29s they will need to have reach the hd-ratio 
limit. When the LIR has reached the hd-ratio limit for multiple 
allocations, I think it would be fair to just double (if possible) all 
those allocations. That will give them enough space to continue 
sub-allocating.



> 5.3.1
> "When more than a /48 is to be sub-allocated to the same customer, the LIR or the End User (via the Sponsoring LIR) must request an approval from the RIPE NCC."
> This is a bit vague wording, which would probably be better by just removing the parentheses. I assume the idea is that the End User submits the request to the Sponsoring LIR, which then hands it over to RIPE NCC?
>

The End-user/Sub-LIR will not be able to directly request the approval 
from the RIPE NCC. It must be done via the Sponsoring LIR.

I don't think it makes any difference with or without the parentheses.

cheers,
elvis