Re: [address-policy-wg] [Ticket#2012092701011684] Sub-allocations - fast and simple re-using IP-addresses
Dear Community, Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community. This idea was presented on Address Policy Working Group, Thursday 27 Sep, RIPE 65, Amsterdam. -- Alexey Ivanov Owner & General Director LeaderTelecom Ltd. Owner & Managing Director LeaderTelecom B.V.
* LeaderTelecom B.V.
Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation.
Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count.
I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ).
Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space.
I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community.
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Dear Tore,
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead?
I think doesn't make any sense to approve in RIPE sub-allocations. Earlier it was important, while count of IP addresses were very limited. And RIPE tried to give as much IPs as need LIR/user/etc. For now we don't have IPv4 in RIPE. And it is not necessary to control sub-allocations. It is a good alternative for temporary transfers. For example, if you go to register buying house and government will ask why you need house, how many rooms do you need, and etc. And they can approve or reject your request. It is not necessary. If you need IPs and you found IPs - of course you will pay money for this IPs and you will get as much as you need. Less work for RIPE, less bureaucracy, simple re-usage - just register and go. You need just several minutes to register records in RIPE database. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. 27.09.2012 16:50 - Tore Anderson написал(а): * LeaderTelecom B.V.
Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community.
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - [1]http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ [1] http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Dear Tore,
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead?
Correct. Why not? Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good for now. Sub-allocations is very good alternative for transfers. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V. 01.10.2012 18:58 - Tore Anderson написал(а): * LeaderTelecom B.V.
Our case: we don't have PA-allocated space. but we have many clients who need IPs. We found ISP who won't make transfer, while this is not very simple procedure, but ready to make sub-allocation. Current policy allows to do suballocations, but maximum size is /20 every twelve months for one ISP. This is too small count. I suggest: remove restrictions for size of network and period (possibility to suballocate without any restractions instead of twelve months ). Pros: 1. No any work for RIPE (transfers requered additional work from RIPE side) 2. Simple and fast. Just register sub-allocation in RIPE Database. 3. Allow effective and fast use IPv4 space. I think in nearest time question of using IP-addresees from other ISP will be very popular and the more simple to use IPv4 addresses from other LIRs is better for community.
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - [1]http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ [1] http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Good morning, * LeaderTelecom B.V.
So there will not be any requirement whatsoever on the receiving ISP to justify their need for the received block, in the way they would have if they had gone through a full transfer instead?
Correct. Why not?
I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are need-based.
Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good for now.
How come? In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it? Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com
Dear Tore,
I question the wisdom of abolishing the need-based mechanism for sub-allocations exclusively, when (to the best of my knowledge) all other mechanisms to obtain number resources in all other regions are need-based.
Need-based princip make sense only until RIR has IPv4 for allocations. I understand that it was many years and it is as habit.
Just see how many transfers in other RIRs. This mechanism work not very good for now.
How come? In any case, if the transfer policy is broken somehow, why not fix it?
Transfers good for permanent transfer. For temporary transfers better option sub-allocations while if you transfer IPs for some time than you get them back and see that they are in spamhouse and other black lists. In case of sub-allocation IPs in your control and you can regulate it. -- Kind regards, Alexey Ivanov LeaderTelecom B.V.
participants (2)
-
LeaderTelecom B.V. -
Tore Anderson