Criteria for initial PA Allocation

On Mon, 21 May 2001, 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. 

Hello.

/22 is a much more reasonable value by my view... what percentage of
members are ISPs ? :-)
Perhaps its possible to typify in some way the organizations that actually
do the requests, and start using different minimum PA allocation sizes.
For instance... an ISP could get the minimal PA allocation of /20 the same
way, but a bank or an insurance company, that normally represents a client
for an ISP, could have a different minimal (and shorter!) PA allocation.


 
> 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. 

Imposing a minimum number of *active* peers (and within a specified time)
should help to reduce these cases...


 
> As all assignments made are based on need, 

Sometimes on a "pseudo-need", i think... :-)


> there is clearly a policy inconsistency in the fact that allocations
> currently do not require any such justification. 

Only first allocs, or second/third/... too ?

 
> 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?)

Requirement should only be mandatory with well defined boundaries...
- Need to renumber with X "disjoint" allocations
- And depending on the size of the allocation... renumbering a /20 i think
  its not impossible, but i dont see anyone starting to renumber a /16 or
  a bigger one...

 
> 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.

Normally when an ISP client gets a /20 directly it requests also an ASN,
right ? If they would only get some PI space, wouldnt we save some more
ASNs ?


(...)
I have a question about this... isnt there a way of enforcing
organizations that only have one peering to give back
"their" "misused" ASN to the RIR ? 
Does anyone know a tool that uses RIPE DBs and that can do these kind of
verifications quickly ? :-)


 
> Kind regards,
> 
> Nurani Nimpuno


Regards,


./Carlos
                                                          "Networking is fun!"
-------------------
<cfriacas at fccn.pt>, CMF8-RIPE, Wide Area Network WorkGroup  http://www.fccn.pt
F.C.C.N. - Fundacao para a Computacao Cientifica Nacional  fax: +351 218472167