Criteria for initial PA Allocation

Hi,

On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 10:52:24AM -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
> RIPE's long-standing tradition of handing out /19s and /20s to all
> requestors, *regardless of actual need*, clearly irresponsibly violates
> the essential tenants of RFC 2050 - a document which is supposed to be the
> foundation of an RIR's address assignment policies.

As the original intention was to hand out such space to *registries*,
who would then go on to hand out this space to their customers, and
eventually come back to get *more* address space, your paragraph simply
isn't true (and calling RIPE "irresponsible" is hardly fair).

The fact that an increasing number of applicants do not come back to
ask for more space has lead to the change from an initial /19 to /20
last year - which was NOT something that the community took lightly,
there was quite some discussion.

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

I disagree.  The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation.

/20 is a good compromise.  Some addresses might be wasted, but so what.

Routing stability and routing table size is a bigger problem than address 
wastage, and lowering initial assignments will lead to more fragmentation
and thus to larger routing tables.

> (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.  Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to
those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there
are fewer of those.

> (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)?
> 
> [BTW, the NCC hasn't proposed (3). I'm just throwing it out there.]

This is done anyway, as far as I remember - whatever RIPE-141 (++) you
send in, it has to show 25/50% utilization (it does not have to be "one 
year", but "the period that you can plan for").

> (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?

Yes.  If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into
the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network.

In the typical case (the /20 might not be filled ever, and the original
space might fit in there just fine) this is good for aggregation *and* 
conservation.  It's just inconvenient, but so is filling in RIPE-141's
instead of giving everybody a Class B.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299