[resent after it got filtered] Dear all, So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any comments before I formally submit it? Best, Remco Number: (assigned by the RIPE NCC) Policy Proposal Name: Allow smaller initial allocations Author: name: Remco van Mook email: remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com organisation: Equinix Proposal Version: 0.1 Submission Date: July 17, 2009 Suggested RIPE WG for discussion and publication: Address Policy Proposal Type: modify Policy Term: Permanent Summary of proposal: Allow new LIRs to get a smaller initial allocation than the standard at their specific request Policy text: Current (if modify): 5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21. New: 5.1 First Allocation The RIPE NCC¹s minimum allocation size is /21. Consequently, the initial allocation size is /21. However, at the explicit request of the member, a smaller initial allocation up to a /24 can be made. In those cases, the RIPE NCC shall not make efforts to keep adjacent address space available for possible future allocation requests. Rationale: Arguments supporting the proposal Potential LIRs are currently forced to request PI space if they do not require a /21 of address space and want to contribute to the conservation of available global IPv4 resources. This policy change removes that obstacle and reduces the amount of requests for PI space for that purpose. The text looks a bit awkward because this is the only place where the minimum allocation size is specified and I wanted to keep that in - the minimum now being a general rule instead of a hard limit. Arguments opposing the proposal This policy change arguably increases fragmentation. On the other side, PI space assignments are made regardless of the minimum allocation size so the chances of actually increasing fragmentation are minimal. People do filtering based on minimum allocation sizes (I've not seen it in real life but that's the ever-returning argument) but that can be avoided using the ranges normally used for assigning PI for undersized allocations. On 17-07-09 14:02, "Sascha Lenz" <slz@baycix.de> wrote:
Hi,
Remco van Mook schrieb:
Hi Mark,
It is heartening to see that your drive to conservation of IPv4 space alone is pushing you to put all this effort in to get PI space. I¹m sure we can suggest a policy change approved that would set the standard initial allocation to /21 but allow for smaller allocations up to /24 if specifically requested by the new LIR.
[...]
... apart from the fact that i don't think the whole community agrees that we need any form of IPv4 conservation anyways :-) ... i think this would be the apropriate step here, yes.
I would support a more "floating" (first) allocation policy, because even that i think that we don't need to conserve IPv4 space too much, i also don't think that we need to waste it either if there are other simple options like what you suggest (smaller Allocation on request or so).
-- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Design & Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================
------ End of Forwarded Message This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales No. 6293383.