[address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)

Hi Angela,

thanks for your reply - this addresses all the remaining concerns I had 
about the proposal.

Nick

Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 05/07/2023 15:52:
> Dear Nick,
>
> The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that /“After one 
> year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, 
> unless special circumstances are defined"/ is implemented the way 
> Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated 
> projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by 
> the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size.
>
> This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy 
> document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the 
> need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] 
> on proposal 2013-03 was: /“It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that 
> Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on 
> documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one 
> year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least 
> 50% of the assignment. “/
>
> The requirements for returning the unused space to the IXP pool are 
> described in paragraph 6.1.5 of the current policy: /“IXPs holding 
> other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they are seeking a 
> larger assignment), and any IPv4 space assigned from this pool that is 
> no longer in use, must be returned to the pool within 180 days of 
> disuse or a new assignment.“/
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Kind regards,
> Angela Dall’Ara
> Policy Officer
> RIPE NCC
>
> [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733
> [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604
> [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03
> [4] 
> https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03#impact-analysis
> On 04/07/2023 20:33, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote:
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Matthias
>>
>> --
>> Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber
>> Team Lead Research and Development
>> ------------------------------
>> DE-CIX Management GmbH
>> Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany)
>> phone: +49 69 1730902 141
>> mobile: +49 171 3836036
>> fax: +49 69 4056 2716
>> e-mail:matthias.wichtlhuber at de-cix.net
>> web:www.de-cix.net
>> ------------------------------
>> DE-CIX Management GmbH
>> Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert
>> Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135
>> Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Nick Hilliard<nick at foobar.org>
>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55
>> An: Matthias Wichtlhuber
>> Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group
>> Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
>>
>> Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58:
>>>> When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that
>>>> the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If
>>>> their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than
>>>> a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they
>>>> postpone their request.
>>> Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions.
>> Hi Matthias
>>
>> Let me ask the question in a different way.  The policy says:
>>
>>> After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined.
>> If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens?  Will
>> the assignment be deassigned?
>>
>> If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE
>> NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to
>> deassign?  I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a
>> practical slop factor in there?
>>
>> Nick
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20230712/f3de255d/attachment.html>