Criteria for initial PA Allocation

At 18:49 21/05/01 +0200, RIPE NCC Staff wrote:
>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.

You can view the criteria we have been using for the past 2 years at:
http://www.isoc.org.il/ip-nets-rules.html

You can see that we actively revoke allocations when an organization stops 
being multihomed:
http://www.isoc.org.il/ipolicy.html

Much more important than working out the details of what criteria qualify 
you for a /22 would be what criteria will cause RIPE to revoke the /22 it 
has assigned.

-Hank

>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