Criteria for initial PA Allocation

> (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a
> policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can
> demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address
> space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?

I agree that there should be a policy and that it should be a minimum of a
/21.

> (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment
> policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles
> established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately,
> 50% utilization within one year)?

If RIPE is going to continue to assign PI space, then yes a policy should be
established. We also need to consider what PI assignments are doing to the
routing tables and whether there should be a minimum PI assignment size or
whether RIPE should continue making PI assignments at all.


> (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of
> address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation
> from RIPE?

I agree with David's opinion in regards to this question. If the
organization has justified the address space from RIPE, then they should be
able to decide what to do with their current Address space from their
upstream provider.

Tanya


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg at ripe.net]On Behalf Of
David R Huberman
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:05 PM
To: Hans Petter Holen
Cc: lir-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: Criteria for initial PA Allocation


I need to put my own thoughts forward, too :>

> (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who
> can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?

Yes. It's enormously wasteful of a scarce resource and is one factor among
many encouraging the RIPE NCC wait queue to be unacceptably long.

> (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a
> policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can
> demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address
> space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?

YES! The RIPE community is sufficiently advanced that imposing a minimum
existence on requestors should not be a burden to significant regional
economic development.

I believe the minimum utilization size should be a /21, not a /22 as
intimated by one member of the NCC staff.

Organizations requesting a /20 from RIPE should be held to the *same
guidelines* as everyone else as outlined in RFC 2050 - slow-start.

If REQUESTOR A is efficiently utilizing a /21, they are certainly
entitled, in the slow-start model, to request a /20 for their upcoming
growth. But if REQUESTOR B is utilizing a /22, they are only entitled to a
/21, not a /20. A /22 is too insignificantly sized to gauge the
justification for a full /20. A /21 is one exponential factor greater - a
statistically relevant distinction.

> (3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment
> policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles
> established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately,
> 50% utilization within one year)?

Since I'm the one who is proposing it, ayep. It has been said here by many
people that PI assignments should only be for exactly what an organization
needs. I contend that an organization should be given some flexibility in
regards to future growth.

> (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of
> address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation
> from RIPE?

No. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the ARIN community's
interpretations of RFC 2050 - it too heavily relies on the conservation
principle and too easily discounts operational effects of such a policy.

If ISP A is using a /21 from an upstream, and is able to justify a /20
from RIPE, the ISP should be entrusted to do what it wishes with the
original /21 - return it, renumber it, keep it. The conservation principle
is insignificantly served by forcing renumbering of /22s or /21s, in my
opinion.

Also, the administrative overhead of *enforcing* such a policy outweighs
the benefit of the policy, in my opinion. It will encourage the wait queue
to lengthen, not contract.

/david