Initial PA Allocation Criteria
Sabrina Waschke sabrina at ripe.net
Sat Sep 29 16:55:14 CEST 2001
Dear all, The RIPE NCC is going to implement the new policy "Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation" on November, 1st, 2001. (The consultation of our lawyers resulted in a delay for this implementation, apologies for that.) Regards, Sabrina Waschke -- o------------------------------------------o | Sabrina Waschke sabrina at ripe.net | | Registration Services Operations Manager | | | | RIPE NCC tel +31 20 535 4444 | | www.ripe.net fax +31 20 535 4445 | o------------------------------------------o "Hans Petter Holen" <hph at online.no> writes: * Dear all, * At the last lir-wg meeting there was a clear consensus that a criteria * for setting up an LIR and receiving the initial allocation was needed. * After a good discussion on the mailinglist there aconclusion has been * proposed. * * With the limited feedback received on the last attempt to call for closure, * I would like to look back to the principle in RFC 2050 and RIPE-185 * stating 25% immediate usage and 50% usage within a year, which * is in line with the proposal of requiring a new LIR to demonstrate previous * usage of a /22 (25% of a /20) or demonstrate immediate need for a * /22 (25% of a /20). * * I hereby propose to this wg that we declare rough consensus on this * proposal, and that we adapt this new criteria as new policy to be * effective from some future date to be suggested by the RIPE NCC. * * My observation is that while we still have some disagreement on the effect * this will have on start up on new LIRs I think the community needs to * balance the negative effect possible renumbering will have on a new LIR * to be, vs. the positive effect slowing down the growth of new LIRs will * have on the service level from the RIPE NCC and the global routing table. * * Sincerely, * Hans Petter * * ----- Original Message ----- * From: "RIPE NCC Staff" <ncc at ripe.net> * To: <lir-wg at ripe.net> * Sent: Friday, June 15, 2001 5:06 PM * Subject: Initial PA Allocation Criteria * * * | Dear all, * | * | Further to my mail on PA Allocation criteria (see below), here follows * | a concrete proposal, including details of the actual criteria to be * | determined. Very little feedback was received on the last mail asking * | for input on the actual details of such criteria. Therefore, in order * | to move forward and establish the details of these criteria, please * | find below a clear proposal of criteria for the initial PA Allocation * | received by a newly established Local IR. * | * | Proposed Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation * | ----------------------------------------------- * | The Local IR is required to: * | * | - Demonstrate previous efficient utilisation of a /22 (1024 * | addresses). * | * | Or * | * | - Demonstrate immediate need for a /22 * | * | Renumbering: * | If current address space held by the Local IR amounts to a /22 or * | less, the Local IR is required to renumber that address space into the * | PA Allocation it will receive from the RIPE NCC. * | * | * | Can the lir-wg agree with the above proposed criteria? * | If no further objections are raised I would like to suggest that the * | RIPE NCC moves forward and implements this policy. * | * | Please let us know if you are not in agreement with the above. * | * | Kind regards, * | * | Nurani Nimpuno * | * | +------------------------------------+ * | | Nurani Nimpuno | * | | Internet Address Policy Manager | * | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | * | | http://www.ripe.net | * | +------------------------------------+ * | * | * | * | ------- Forwarded Message * | * | Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 18:23:48 +0200 * | From: RIPE NCC Staff <ncc at ripe.net> * | Resent-From: Nurani Nimpuno <nurani at ripe.net> * | Sender: owner-lir-wg at ripe.net * | To: lir-wg at ripe.net * | Resent-To: ncc at ripe.net * | Subject: Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion * | * | Dear all, * | * | Thank you for you input thus far in the discussion on portable address * | space. Many useful points have been raised on the matter of PI address * | space and PA Allocations. * | * | (The complete discussion can be read at: * | http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/lir-wg/current/msg00130.html) * | * | Below is an attempt to summarise the discussion so far: * | * | The concept of smaller allocations (than current /20) was initially * | brought but the majority felt that this was not a realistic * | option. The comments showed concern about the exponential growth in * | the routing table and it was believed that smaller allocations would * | further contribute to this growth. There was consequently further * | discussion on how the RIR policies can prevent/reduce this through * | sensible address allocation/assignment criteria. * | * | On the subject of PI assignments, related to the current growth in the * | routing table, it was agreed that PI assignments should (as current * | policy states) be based on need and not routability. It was further * | stated that end users should be discouraged from multi-homing with * | globally visible address space. Some participants of the discussion * | argued for a complete discontinuation of PI. * | * | Most contributors agreed that /20 PA Allocations should be given to * | organisations who wish to further assign addresses to customers / * | end-users from their PA block. PA Allocations should not be made to * | organisations to satisfy pure multi-homing / independence needs. A set * | of criteria should therefore be determined to clarify this. * | * | Lastly, the majority agreed that the PA Allocation criteria should be * | based on previous efficient utilisation. There was further discussion * | with regards to the size of the efficiently utilised address space the * | requestor needs to demonstrate. The prefix sizes /22 and /21 were * | briefly discussed. * | * | If the community believes that this is a just summary of the * | discussion, I wish to move forward and determine the details of such * | criteria, through presenting a few very concrete discussion points. * | * | I would like your opinion on the following: * | * | 1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set: * | * | The requesting organisation need to show * | - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx * | or * | - Immediate need for a /xx ? * | * | 2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient * | utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to * | demonstrate efficient utilisation of * | A. /22 * | or * | B. /21 ? * | * | 3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate * | need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate * | need of a * | A. /22 * | or * | B. /21? * | * | 4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber * | depending on the sizes of its current aggregates? * | * | 4A. If so, what is a reasonable size of the smallest aggregate * | that an organisation would be required to renumber? * | * | * | I am looking forward to your input on these concrete points. * | * | Kind regards, * | * | Nurani Nimpuno * | RIPE NCC * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | * | ------- End of Forwarded Message * | * | * *
[ lir-wg Archives ]