[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

Hello,

I don't think that there is anyone whom would not be able to justify /22. So I 
think that there should not be any need for justification. Simply because it 
would be one more meaningless paper, nothing more.

Secondly, for me having more specific routes than /24 doesn't seems seem as the 
right solution for IPv4. More specific routes means more routes in table, so 
more resources spent on legacy protocol.

As for the core of the proposal - droping maximal allocation size from /22 to 
/24: I don't think that keeping PA pool longer than needed is good for future 
of an Internet.

Maybe it would be better to transfer more space in PI IX pool, drop the 
restrictions on that pool which prevents to use it for CGN and let the PA 
space run flat.

Long story short, I'm aginst the 2017-03 policy as it is written right now.

Best Regards,
Martin Hunek

Dne pátek 22. září 2017 10:09:28 CEST, Daniel Suchy napsal(a):
> Hello,
> /24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also
> /24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any
> problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support
> this idea.
> 
> But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to /22
> maximum, as was decided in the past) LIRs eligible for allocation, if
> LIR properly documents his request.
> 
> From my own practice there're some LIR, where /24 is sufficient and they
> just become LIRs because there's no other real option to get independent
> addresses (old "PI") and with /22 we're just wasting limited resource.
> But there're also LIRs, where /22 will actively used.
> 
> I don't see any problems in terms of RFC 2050 mentioned here and memory
> contraints, providers had to upgrade their routers in meantime anyway
> (at least due to IPv6 adoption). Fragmentation up to /24 is long-term
> reality and we had to deal with it anyway.
> 
> With regards,
> Daniel
> 
> On 09/21/2017 01:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote:
> > Dear colleagues,
> > 
> > A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation,
> > aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for
> > discussion.
> > 
> > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the
> > RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not
> > received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before.
> > 
> > You can find the full proposal at:
> > https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/
> > 
> > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this
> > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback
> > to the proposer.
> > 
> > At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of
> > the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal.
> > 
> > We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
> > <address-policy-wg at ripe.net> before 20 October 2017.
> > 
> > Kind regards,
> > 
> > Marco Schmidt
> > Policy Development Officer
> > RIPE NCC
> > 
> > Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20170922/5298701e/attachment.sig>