Criteria for initial PA Allocation

Dear all,

At the last RIPE meeting (RIPE 39) in Bologna, the issue of criteria
for PA Allocations was discussed in the LIR-WG. The presentation
delivered is available from: 
http://www.ripe.net/meetings/archive/ripe-39/presentations/

(Please also refer to the mail sent out to the lir-working group the
25 April at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00056.html

We would like the communities input on this matter.

The problem brought up was the lack of clear and consistent policy on
portable address space. Currently two types of portable address space
are available:
- Provider Aggregatable (PA) Allocations 
- Provider Independent (PI) Assignments

The discussion was focused on criteria for PA Allocations as this is
where the most significant policy inconsistency can be found. Current
criteria for initial PA Allocations are:
- Membership (You are required to be a member in order to get your
first allocation. The RIPE NCC membership is open, anyone can become a
member.)
- Justification of first assignment (You are required to justify the
first assignment you make out of your allocation. There is no minimum
assignment size.)

The minimal PA Allocation size is currently a /20 (= 4096 IP
addresses) This means in reality that anyone who can justify one IP
address is eligible for 4096 addresses. 

With an increased demand for independence and multi-homing, the RIPE
NCC can see the consequences of this in the impressive membership
growth in the last years:

New LIRs set up per year:
1997:	262
1998:	446
1999:	525
2000:	865
2001:	997 (projected, end of year)

The RIPE NCC has experienced several cases where organisations have
insisted on becoming members in order to receive a portable /20
address block despite the fact they clearly state that their need is
for less, in some cases only for c:a 300 addresses. We also observe
organisations who become LIRs with the pure objective of obtaining
portable address space but who are unaware of the responsibilities and
workload membership comprises. 

As all assignments made are based on need, there is clearly a policy
inconsistency in the fact that allocations currently do not require
any such justification. 

Consensus was reached in the LIR-WG at RIPE 39 that a set of criteria
should be defined for obtaining an initial PA Allocation. The working
group also agreed that the exact details of those criteria should be
further discussed on the mailing list. 

Extending the logic of basing address assignments on need and previous
utilisation to allocations, I therefore put forward the following
proposal:

Proposed Initial PA Allocation Criteria:

- Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx (/22?)
Or
- Immediate need for a /xx (/22?)

- Agree to renumber (Required? Recommended?)

As the need for portable address space is a complex matter, I would
like to propose to first focus this discussion on defining these
criteria. 

The matter clearly also touches on the matter of PI Assignments, which
is something I would like to encourage further discussion on. However,
I would like start by requesting the communities input on the matter
of initial PA Allocation criteria.

Kind regards,

Nurani Nimpuno

+------------------------------------+
| Nurani Nimpuno                     |
| Registration Services Manager      |
| RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre  |
| http://www.ripe.net                |
+------------------------------------+


Relevant studies:
-----------------
Philip Smith "Studies of the routing table": 
http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp/
Geoff Huston "Measuring BGP": 
http://www.apnic.net/meetings/presentations/apricot01.ppt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-iab-bgparch-00.txt
Scott Marcus "ASN Growth":
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/archive/ripe-38/index.html
RIS report / BGP prefix distribution:
http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/pub-services/np/ris-index.html