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