Initial PA Allocation Criteria

Dear all,
At the last lir-wg meeting there was a clear consensus that a criteria
for setting up an LIR and receiving the initial allocation was needed.
After a good discussion on the mailinglist there aconclusion has been
proposed.

With the limited feedback received on the last attempt to call for closure,
I would like to look back to the principle in RFC 2050 and RIPE-185
stating 25% immediate usage and 50% usage within a year, which
is in line with the proposal of requiring a new LIR to demonstrate previous
usage of a /22 (25% of a /20) or demonstrate immediate need for a
/22 (25% of a /20).

I hereby propose to this wg that we declare rough consensus on this
proposal, and that we adapt this new criteria as new policy to be
effective from some future date to be suggested by the RIPE NCC.

My observation is that while we still have some disagreement on the effect
this will have on start up on new LIRs I think the community needs to
balance the negative effect possible renumbering will have on a new LIR 
to be, vs. the positive effect slowing down the growth of new LIRs will 
have on the service level from the RIPE NCC and the global routing table.

Sincerely,
Hans Petter

----- Original Message -----
From: "RIPE NCC Staff" <ncc at ripe.net>
To: <lir-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:06 PM
Subject: Initial PA Allocation Criteria


| Dear all,
|
| Further to my mail on PA Allocation criteria (see below), here follows
| a concrete proposal, including details of the actual criteria to be
| determined. Very little feedback was received on the last mail asking
| for input on the actual details of such criteria. Therefore, in order
| to move forward and establish the details of these criteria, please
| find below a clear proposal of criteria for the initial PA Allocation
| received by a newly established Local IR.
|
| Proposed Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation
| -----------------------------------------------
| The Local IR is required to:
|
| - Demonstrate previous efficient utilisation of a /22 (1024
| addresses).
|
| Or
|
| - Demonstrate immediate need for a /22
|
| Renumbering:
| If current address space held by the Local IR amounts to a /22 or
| less, the Local IR is required to renumber that address space into the
| PA Allocation it will receive from the RIPE NCC.
|
|
| Can the lir-wg agree with the above proposed criteria?
| If no further objections are raised I would like to suggest that the
| RIPE NCC moves forward and implements this policy.
|
| Please let us know if you are not in agreement with the above.
|
| Kind regards,
|
| Nurani Nimpuno
|
| +------------------------------------+
| | Nurani Nimpuno                     |
| | Internet Address Policy Manager    |
| | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre  |
| | http://www.ripe.net                |
| +------------------------------------+
|
|
|
| ------- Forwarded Message
|
| Date:     Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:23:48 +0200
| From:     RIPE NCC Staff <ncc at ripe.net>
| Resent-From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at ripe.net>
| Sender:   owner-lir-wg at ripe.net
| To:       lir-wg at ripe.net
| Resent-To: ncc at ripe.net
| Subject:  Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion
|
| Dear all,
|
| Thank you for you input thus far in the discussion on portable address
| space. Many useful points have been raised on the matter of PI address
| space and PA Allocations.
|
| (The complete discussion can be read at:
| http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00130.html)
|
| Below is an attempt to summarise the discussion so far:
|
| The concept of smaller allocations (than current /20) was initially
| brought but the majority felt that this was not a realistic
| option. The comments showed concern about the exponential growth in
| the routing table and it was believed that smaller allocations would
| further contribute to this growth. There was consequently further
| discussion on how the RIR policies can prevent/reduce this through
| sensible address allocation/assignment criteria.
|
| On the subject of PI assignments, related to the current growth in the
| routing table, it was agreed that PI assignments should (as current
| policy states) be based on need and not routability. It was further
| stated that end users should be discouraged from multi-homing with
| globally visible address space. Some participants of the discussion
| argued for a complete discontinuation of PI.
|
| Most contributors agreed that /20 PA Allocations should be given to
| organisations who wish to further assign addresses to customers /
| end-users from their PA block. PA Allocations should not be made to
| organisations to satisfy pure multi-homing / independence needs. A set
| of criteria should therefore be determined to clarify this.
|
| Lastly, the majority agreed that the PA Allocation criteria should be
| based on previous efficient utilisation. There was further discussion
| with regards to the size of the efficiently utilised address space the
| requestor needs to demonstrate. The prefix sizes /22 and /21 were
| briefly discussed.
|
| If the community believes that this is a just summary of the
| discussion, I wish to move forward and determine the details of such
| criteria, through presenting a few very concrete discussion points.
|
| I would like your opinion on the following:
|
| 1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set:
|
|     The requesting organisation need to show
|      - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx
|     or
|      - Immediate need for a /xx ?
|
| 2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient
|    utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to
|    demonstrate efficient utilisation of
|     A. /22
|     or
|     B. /21 ?
|
| 3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate
|    need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate
|    need of a
|     A. /22
|     or
|     B. /21?
|
| 4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber
|    depending on the sizes of its current aggregates?
|
|     4A. If so, what is a reasonable size of the smallest aggregate
|         that an organisation would be required to renumber?
|
|
| I am looking forward to your input on these concrete points.
|
| Kind regards,
|
| Nurani Nimpuno
| RIPE NCC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ------- End of Forwarded Message
|
|