Dear colleagues,
We are reviewing IPv4 status hierarchies in the RIPE Database (looking at objects with the same status as their less-specifics).
Some cases are clear - "ASSIGNED PA" shouldn't be allowed under "ASSIGNED PA", for example. Other statuses might need a closer look and we would like guidance from this working group.
The RIPE Database does not currently have any limitations on creating inetnums that have the status "SUB-ALLOCATED PA" or "LIR-PARTITIONED PA" under inetnums with the same status. This often results in chains of inetnums that have the same status, sometimes ending with the sub-allocation of a single IP address.
Although this might not seem useful at first glance, there might be practical uses for a few levels of sub-allocation. For example, a global company could give sub-allocations to its national branches, which make smaller sub-allocations to their multiple daughter companies. These daughter companies could then create and maintain assignments for their actual networks.
However, this is not allowed under a strict reading of the policy, as only the LIR itself can make sub-allocations, and these must be used for assignments.
Section 5.3 "Sub-allocations" of the IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies (ripe-733) states:
"Sub-allocations are intended to aid the goal of routing aggregation and can only be made from allocations with a status of "ALLOCATED PA".
[...]
LIRs may make sub-allocations to multiple downstream network operators."
https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733#54
Before making any changes, we want to be sure that we understand the intent of the policy and what the community wants us to do. Thus, we would like to hear from the Address Policy Working Group:
- Should inetnums with these statuses be allowed to be created inside one another?
- Should there be a limit on the minimum size of a sub-allocation?
- Do we need a policy update?
We look forward to your guidance.
Kind regards,
--
Petrit Hasani
Policy Officer
RIPE NCC
Dear RIPE members and community,
We have come across a question of correct interpretation for "utilization" wthin´the current "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" RIPE-738 document:
5.2.2. Applied HD-Ratio
The HD-Ratio value of 0.94 is adopted as indicating an acceptable address utilisation for justifying the allocation of additional address space.
Appendix A provides a table showing the number of assignments that are necessary to achieve an acceptable utilisation value for a given address block size.
[...]
10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio
The utilisation threshold T, expressed as a number of individual /56 prefixes to be allocated from IPv6 prefix P, can be calculated as:
T = 2((56-P)*HD)
Thus, the utilisation threshold for an LIR requesting subsequent allocation of IPv6 address block is specified as a function of the prefix size and target HD ratio.
This utilisation refers to the use of /56s as an efficiency measurement unit, and does not refer to the utilisation of addresses within those End Sites.
It is an address allocation utilisation ratio and not an address assignment utilisation ratio.
[...]
The two underlined sentences seem to contradict each other.
For a correct interpretation and calculation of the HD-Ratio/Utilization-Threshold (T) for IPv6-subsequent block eligibility, what is now correct "allocation" or "assignment" ?
In the LIR-Portal there is an %-indication for "my own resources" which soley refers to assignments within a specific block. Allocations seem not to be considered.
What is the correct way to calculcate the utilization?
Best regards,
on behalf
Kurt Kayser
_______________________
Kurt Kayser Konsultation
im Auftrag des Referates SK 4 - Konzeption/ Local Internet Registry
Bundesanstalt für den Digitalfunk der Behörden und Organisationen mit Sicherheitsaufgaben (BDBOS)
Telefon: +49 (0) 1575-2634020
E-Mail: Kurt.Kayser(a)bmi.bund.de<mailto:Kurt.Kayser@bmi.bund.de>
Internet: www.bdbos.bund.de<http://www.bmi.bund.de/>
Dear colleagues,
Yesterday, LACNIC announced that they have implemented their inter-RIR transfer policy:
https://www.lacnic.net/4711/2/lacnic/lacnic-starts-processing-inter-rir-tra…
This means that IPv4 addresses can now be transferred between organisations in the RIPE NCC and LACNIC regions (IPv6 and AS Numbers are excluded from LACNIC's inter-RIR transfer policy).
You can find more information on inter-RIR transfers on our website:
https://www.ripe.net/manage-ips-and-asns/resource-transfers-and-mergers/int…
It's worth noting that an inter-RIR transfer request should always start with the offering party via the "source" RIR that the resources are currently registered with.
Kind regards,
Nikolas Pediaditis
Registration Services & Policy Development Manager
RIPE NCC
