Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
All, On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 02:18:44PM +0100, Marco Schmidt wrote:
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to
I don't think this proposal takes into account operational reality. The fact of the matter is, that there is a lower limit to what allocation size is operationally useful to a LIR (unless the routing community is prepared to accept /32s in the DFZ). Add to that the extra complexity of reverse delegating </24 zones that is mentioned elsewhere in the thread and the likely outcome is a mess. I think the better way to do this would be to: - retain the /22 min-alloc size until the last /8 is gone - possibly change the *transfer* policies to allow transfers of /24< x </22 - implement something like 2014-01 but with a min-alloc size of /24 when that happens - review after a year(?) with a view to whether any smaller allocation size is actually *operationally useful* to LIRs I do not want to go back to the not-so-long-ago days of having to concoct fiction in order to get a useful amount of resources out of the NCC. rgds, Sascha Luck
Hi, On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 04:41:44PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
I do not want to go back to the not-so-long-ago days of having to concoct fiction in order to get a useful amount of resources out of the NCC.
You won't, just request IPv6. For IPv4, it will be slightly hard, for the foreseeable future, to achieve that. IOW, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us here...? gert, speaking for himself -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:13:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
You won't, just request IPv6. For IPv4, it will be slightly hard, for the foreseeable future, to achieve that.
IOW, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us here...?
What I'm trying to tell you here is that abolition of any min-alloc size will again require demonstration of "need" in order to get a useful (ie. routeable) allocation (with all that this entails). Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered? rgds, Sascha Luck
Dear Sacha,
What I'm trying to tell you here is that abolition of any min-alloc size will again require demonstration of "need" in order to get a useful (ie. routeable) allocation (with all that this entails). Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered?
I think there is a misunderstanding here. This policy (2014-01) does not change the rest of the text of 5.1. It still says: 1. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22. Best regards, Janos
rgds, Sascha Luck
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 07:58:44PM +0100, Janos Zsako wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding here. This policy (2014-01) does not change the rest of the text of 5.1. It still says: 1. The size of the allocation made will be exactly one /22.
You're right, it does. My bad. That actually removes the main reason to be unhappy with the proposal; the reverse DNS issue is not strong enough to sustain an objection on. Thanks for clarifying this, Sascha Luck
Hi, On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:23:58PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:13:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
You won't, just request IPv6. For IPv4, it will be slightly hard, for the foreseeable future, to achieve that.
IOW, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us here...?
What I'm trying to tell you here is that abolition of any min-alloc size will again require demonstration of "need" in order to get a useful (ie. routeable) allocation (with all that this entails).
The proposal at hand is not affecting "last /8" policy, and as such, has no influence on routability of allocations handed out by the RIPE NCC.
Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered?
Justification of a single IP address will give you your last-/8-/22, if you had none before. There is no granularity in last-/8 allocations, it's "a single piece of standard-size fits all". Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 05:44:21PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
The proposal at hand is not affecting "last /8" policy, and as such, has no influence on routability of allocations handed out by the RIPE NCC.
Yep, Janos already pointed out that I missed the bit where 2014-01 doesn't change the "last /8" allocation size. D-oh.
Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered?
Justification of a single IP address will give you your last-/8-/22, if you had none before. There is no granularity in last-/8 allocations, it's "a single piece of standard-size fits all".
yep, as above. rgds, Sascha Luck
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Janos Zsako -
Sascha Luck