[hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal / reservation revisited?

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 01:21:56PM +0200, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>   To me, this rather sounds like a case for revisiting reservation, 
>   rather than arguing for a new registry type/structure/rules.
>
>   Am I missing something?


Multi-level allocations are a utility to handle network aggregation
smaller than the full LIR allocation. E.g. you chose small assignments
of networks routed to a particular PoP or reseller to fall within the
same /24 (or some other possible arbitrary allocation size). The /24 is
therefore 'allocated' to that PoP or reseller independent of this fact
being documented in the RIPE DB or not. And yes, this does 'reserve'
address space, but that's a problem of the LIR in question. RIPE won't
see the 'reserved' addresses and won't hand out more addresses to the LIR
and the amount of addresses reserved by this procedure tends to be very
small if the allocation size is chosen reasonably.

Documentation in the RIPE DB makes the procedure more transparent and
also helps in organizing responsibilities, as the actual data gathering
and communication is most often done by the reseller and not directly
by the LIR.

But this is not strictly necessary as you can document 'sub allocations'
and responsibilities outside of the RIPE-DB. In fact, we stored such
'sub allocations' in the RIPE-DB for some years for exactly that purpose
until RIPE NCC requested to remove these records because it conflicted
with their 'overlapping assignment validation'-tool. RIPE NCC never
understood the reasoning behind the multi-level allocations and I
still remember the fruitless discussions with RIPE hostmasters from
that time.

I do not see the need to introduce new registry types or structures
unless you believe that 'selling the right to assign IP addresses to
entities down the hierarchy' is a valid reason.

Just my EUR0.02.

Michael van Elst


> 
>   Wilfried.
>   ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:58:24 +0200
> From: Gert Doering <gert at space.net>
> To: Adrian Bool <aid at vianw.net>
> CC: lir-wg at ripe.net
> Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:05:41PM +0100, Adrian Bool wrote:
> > I feel that international networks require the ability to operate according 
> > to the same rules as RIPE - just working on a smaller scale - as another 
> > level down in the hierarchy.
> 
> Not only "international networks", but also national ones that have a
> hierarchical structure of re-sellers.
> 
> > i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have 
> > sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks  - natuarally 
> > in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would 
> > allocate space to these in-country networks.
> 
> Sure.
> 
> 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
-- 
i.A. Michael van Elst                /          phone: +49 721 9652 330
Xlink - Network Information Centre \/           fax:   +49 721 9652 349
Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9             /\ link      http://nic.xlink.net/
D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany        /_______      email: hostmaster at xlink.net
[ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz Karlsruhe                                   ]
[ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael Mueller-Berg ]