Although I agree that the 50% number is problematic, the explanation by Marco is sufficient for me to vote "aye" on this proposal.
Yes, we should probably fix this at some point, but I agree with Matthias that, given Marco's explanation, this should not be part of this particular round of review.
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 09:58 +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber via address-policy-wg wrote:
1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of 50% utilisation
2. what is a "special circumstance"?
The proposal does not modify existing numbers (50%) or the "special circumstances". Both are in the current policy already (see old policy text 6.1 .4). I think the changes you propose should be done in a separate policy proposal as they are an addition to this policy proposal rather than a change.
Nevertheless RIPE has clarified how they handle the 50% issue currently (see Marco Schmidt's mail from mid May):
When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that
the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If
their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than
a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they
postpone their request.
Thus, this issue is not urgent and can be discussed separately. I hope that answers open questions.
Regards,
Matthias
--
Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber
Team Lead Research and Development
------------------------------
DE-CIX Management GmbH
Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany)
phone: +49 69 1730902 141
mobile: +49 171 3836036
fax: +49 69 4056 2716
------------------------------
DE-CIX Management GmbH
Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert
Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135
Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne
________________________________________
Gesendet: Freitag, 30. Juni 2023 00:55:35
An: Nick Hilliard
Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group
Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
I agree with Nick here regarding 1.
These magic numbers should really be fixed.
-Cynthia
Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 29/06/2023 15:19:
It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase.
this version of the document hasn't addressed the problems I raised on April 26. The authors need to give some consideration about what might be the best approach to fixing them:
1. problematic edge cases in section 5 due to the magic figure of 50% utilisation
2. what is a "special circumstance"?
I don't believe that the document should progress until these issues are addressed.
Nick