Dear WG, As I have seen no proposals to prolong this process, we have consensus on this matter. Seasons Greetings, Hans Petter Holen Address Policy WG Chair |Dear WG, |I would like to call for closure on this matter. As this has |been presented and discussed at the last RIPE meeting and |proposed to the list as a formal proposal I would like to |declare consensus on this issue. | |There have been discussion on the mainlinglist with some |critical comments that it is my understanding has been |clearified. (This proposal does not affect the payment scedule |or membership structure and it does not affecting the PI policy). | |With this I would normaly declare concensus but as no deadline |was set for the discussion I propose a 1 week last call for |objections to the process on this matter. If I receive |objections I propose to set a I month comment period before |calling for closure on this matter. | |Best Regards, |Hans Petter Holen |Address Policy WG Chair | ||-----Original Message----- ||From: address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net ||[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Gert Doering ||Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:31 PM ||To: address-policy-wg@ripe.net ||Subject: [address-policy-wg] FORMAL PROPOSAL: change of initial PA ||allocation size || ||Hi, || ||this was discussed on the list before the last RIPE meeting, |and we had ||it on the address policy working group meeting (presented by me). || ||I think we mostly have consensus on this issue, but I want to present ||it as a formal proposal, before it's incorporated into the policy. || || ||PROPOSAL: || || * the minimum initial allocation size (for new LIRs) is reduced from || a /20, as of today, to a /21. || (If a new LIR can demonstrate need for a bigger initial |allocation, || they can get a larger address block. This will not be changed). || || * the requirement to show an immediate need for 25% of the allocated || address space is removed for the "minimum initial allocation" || || ||The motivation for that is that under the current policy, ||startup LIRs that do not already hold address space cannot get ||an initial PA allocation (which would be a /20 as of today, or ||bigger), because in many cases, they cannot demonstrate ||immediate need, or prior utilization of sufficient address space. || ||To work around this, many startup LIRs use PI address space as ||a start, and when they have filled enough of this, apply for ||their own PA again. ||The problem with this is that in the end, it's very likely ||that more than one route will end up in the global BGP table ||(where one PA route would be sufficient), and also it ||encourages lying to the RIRs (PI space must not be distributed ||to third parties, i.e., LIR customers). || || ||The drawback of the changes are that it's potentially wasting ||address space for "very small LIRs" (that would be happy with ||a /23 PI space and will now get a "huge" /21). The wastage ||would only happen for very small LIRs that will never grow to ||fill the initial /21. ||A rough calculation shows that "1000 new LIR /21 allocations" ||would need a /11, which is not an unbearable strain on the ||conservation side, judging from the total number of LIRs in ||RIPE land today. || ||A second drawback of this is that people may need to adapt ||their BGP filters to permit /21s from the network block(s) ||where these allocations are made from. So the RIPE NCC needs ||to document this accordingly, and ideally, well in advance. || ||Gert Doering || -- NetMaster ||-- ||Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: ||57785 (56883) || ||SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net ||Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 ||80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 || |