Hello, Leo! On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 01:19:27PM +0100, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Some minor questions: why /21? It is just current minimum allocation size? If yes, what about changes which possible in future?
Good question.
I looked at the policy in other regions[0] and saw that there was quite a spread. For instance, APNIC's current policy[1] is very similar policy to RIPE's. In contrast, ARIN's current policy[2] requires small to large ISPs to seek ARIN's approval before making reassignments of a /19. That goes up to /18 for extra-large ISPs.
ISPs in North America seem to cope fairly well with more freedom than is currently available in the RIPE region. However, 0 to /19 is a big leap. I thought that /21 was a good balance between providing LIRs with more freedom while limiting the amount of damage to a relatively small size.
If the proposal is accepted and doesn't cause any significant harm then increasing the first AW from /21 to a shorter prefix may be appropriate in the future.
Hm... Is there statistics which shows subnet size requested per user for last year? Something like (actual numbers is just an example!): Size Requests in 2006 4-32 addresses 5,000 10% 33-64 addresses 8,000 12% ... 256-511 addresses 50,000 44% ... 2048-4095 addresses 1,300 6% 4096-8191 addresses 750 3% ... In my opinion AW can be auto-rised to almost match most "popular" assignments sizes. All further risings(lowers) can be done upon LIR request. If stats does not show clear peak - AW size can be aligned to nearest bigest value. -- Dmitry Kiselev