2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
Dear colleagues, Policy proposal 2023-01, " Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26", is now in the Review Phase. This proposal modifies the default size of IPv4 assignments for IXPs from a /24 to /26 and clarifies the return of the assignments previously issued for their IXP peering LAN. The RIPE NCC has prepared an impact analysis on this proposal to support the community’s discussion. You can find the proposal and impact analysis at: _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01_ _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01#impact-analysis_ And the draft documents at: _https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2023-01/draft_ As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Review Phase is to continue discussion of the proposal taking the impact analysis into consideration, and to review the full draft RIPE Policy Document. At the end of the Review Phase, the Working Group (WG) Chairs will determine whether the WG has reached rough consensus. It is therefore important to provide your opinion, even if it is simply a restatement of your input from the previous phase. We encourage you to read the proposal, impact analysis and draft document and to send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 28 July2023. Kind regards, Angela Dall'Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
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
nick,
2. what is a "special circumstance"?
maybe "unforseen" would be better? from an old CII preso If it was part of the “plan” it’s an event, if it is not then it’s a “disaster” randy
I agree with Nick here regarding 1. These magic numbers should really be fixed. -Cynthia On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
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
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
Hi Nick, all,
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 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web: www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ 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 ________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> 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 On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
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
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
-- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
* Matthias Wichtlhuber
Hi Nick, all,
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.
I agree with Matthias here. Since 2023-01 does not introduce the language Nick points to I find it unreasonable to demand that this proposal should also fix any issues in that language (if they are indeed in need of fixing). This proposal aims to solve a different problem, after all, so fixing other issues is not in scope. I see no surprises in the Impact Analysis, so I reiterate my support for moving 2023-01 forward. Tore
Hi, 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. Cheers, Steven 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 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.de-cix.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteven.bakker%40ams-ix.net%7C0baf6acaa3a04e5ebb6408db79508c78%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638237159103038008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGK%2BWwN4RXt1p6Fsa%2FjUCwiUQdtvrBVWYenKY3AekaE%3D&reserved=0 ------------------------------ 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
________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> im Auftrag von Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> 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
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
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
+1 to what Matthias, Tore, and Steven said. So, I also reiterate my support for moving 2023-01 forward. Arnold On 03.07.2023 18:46, Steven Bakker via address-policy-wg wrote:
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.
Cheers, Steven
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 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net <mailto:matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net> web: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.de-cix.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteven.bakker%40ams-ix.net%7C0baf6acaa3a04e5ebb6408db79508c78%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638237159103038008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGK%2BWwN4RXt1p6Fsa%2FjUCwiUQdtvrBVWYenKY3AekaE%3D&reserved=0 <https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.de-cix.net%2F&data=05%7C01%7Csteven.bakker%40ams-ix.net%7C0baf6acaa3a04e5ebb6408db79508c78%7C09d28fc155624961a4848ce4932094ae%7C0%7C0%7C638237159103038008%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nGK%2BWwN4RXt1p6Fsa%2FjUCwiUQdtvrBVWYenKY3AekaE%3D&reserved=0> ------------------------------ 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
________________________________________ Von: address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net>> im Auftrag von Cynthia Revström via address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg@ripe.net <mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net>> 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
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 10:55 PM Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org <mailto:nick@foobar.org>> wrote:
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
-- Arnold Nipper Chief Technology Evangelist and Co-Founder DE-CIX Management GmbH Lindleystraße 12 | 60314 Frankfurt a.M. | Germany Phone +49 69 1730902 22 | Mobile +49 172 2650958 arnold.nipper@de-cix.net | www.de-cix.net Geschaeftsfuehrer Ivaylo Ivanov und Sebastian Seifert Registergericht AG Koeln HRB 51135 Want to work at DE-CIX: https://de-cix.net/en/about-de-cix/careers
Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58:
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.
Hi Matthias Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says:
After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined.
If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned? If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there? Nick
Hi Nick, Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list. 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 e-mail: matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web: www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ 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 ________________________________________ Von: Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 An: Matthias Wichtlhuber Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26) Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58:
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.
Hi Matthias Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says:
After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined.
If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned? If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there? Nick
Dear Nick, The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that /“After one year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined"/ is implemented the way Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size. This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] on proposal 2013-03 was: /“It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least 50% of the assignment. “/ The requirements for returning the unused space to the IXP pool are described in paragraph 6.1.5 of the current policy: /“IXPs holding other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they are seeking a larger assignment), and any IPv4 space assigned from this pool that is no longer in use, must be returned to the pool within 180 days of disuse or a new assignment.“/ I hope this helps. Kind regards, Angela Dall’Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03 [4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03#impact-analysis On 04/07/2023 20:33, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote:
Hi Nick,
Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list.
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 e-mail:matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web:www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ 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
________________________________________ Von: Nick Hilliard<nick@foobar.org> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 An: Matthias Wichtlhuber Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58:
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. Hi Matthias
Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says:
After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned?
If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there?
Nick
On Wed, 2023-07-05 at 16:52 +0200, Angela Dall'Ara wrote:
The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that “After one year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined" is implemented the way Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size. This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] on proposal 2013-03 was: “It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least 50% of the assignment. “
Hi, I want to also point out here that the «50% after one year» requirement as well as the «special circumstances» exception were not novel concepts first introduced by 2013-03, they were simply moved (and slightly simplified) from the general section of the policy into the IXP-specific section, as the need evaluation was being removed from the former. To be clear, it was our (the 2013-03 authors) intention to leave these mechanisms essentially as-is for IXP assignments specifically. The old pre-2013-03 policy (which covered both IXP and non-IXP assignments) read as as follows: «6.3 Utilisation Rates Assignments' immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined.» See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599 I have not attempted to figure out exactly when this language was introduced, but I suspect it has been around for a long time. Tore
On Thu, 6 Jul 2023 at 04:05, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote: [...]
The old pre-2013-03 policy (which covered both IXP and non-IXP assignments) read as as follows:
«6.3 Utilisation Rates
Assignments' immediate utilisation should be at least 25% of the assigned space. After one year, this should be at least 50% of the space unless special circumstances are defined.»
See https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-599
I have not attempted to figure out exactly when this language was introduced, but I suspect it has been around for a long time.
It goes back to at least RFC 2050, published in November 1996. Kind regards, Leo
Hi Angela, thanks for your reply - this addresses all the remaining concerns I had about the proposal. Nick Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 05/07/2023 15:52:
Dear Nick,
The requirement in the current policy (ripe-733) [1] that /“After one year the utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined"/ is implemented the way Marco previously explained: the 50% utilisation refers to an estimated projection, which must be supported by the documentation provided by the IXP when requesting an assignment larger than the minimum size.
This requirement was first introduced in the ripe-604 [2] policy document, after the approval of proposal 2013-03 [3], to maintain the need evaluation for IXP assignments. The RIPE NCC Impact Analysis [4] on proposal 2013-03 was: /“It is the RIPE NCC’s understanding that Internet Exchange Point assignments larger than /24 would be based on documented calculations that allow the utilisation to be estimated one year after the date of assignment. This utilisation should be at least 50% of the assignment. “/
The requirements for returning the unused space to the IXP pool are described in paragraph 6.1.5 of the current policy: /“IXPs holding other PI IPv4 space for their peering LAN (i.e. they are seeking a larger assignment), and any IPv4 space assigned from this pool that is no longer in use, must be returned to the pool within 180 days of disuse or a new assignment.“/
I hope this helps.
Kind regards, Angela Dall’Ara Policy Officer RIPE NCC
[1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-733 [2] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-604 [3] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03 [4] https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2013-03#impact-analysis On 04/07/2023 20:33, Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote:
Hi Nick,
Marco or Angela from RIPE should be able to answer this question. I have no insights into this beyond what was communicated by RIPE on this list.
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 e-mail:matthias.wichtlhuber@de-cix.net web:www.de-cix.net ------------------------------ 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
________________________________________ Von: Nick Hilliard<nick@foobar.org> Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Juli 2023 20:18:55 An: Matthias Wichtlhuber Cc: RIPE Address Policy Working Group Betreff: Re: AW: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 Review Phase (Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
Matthias Wichtlhuber wrote on 30/06/2023 10:58:
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. Hi Matthias
Let me ask the question in a different way. The policy says:
After one year, utilisation of the new assignment must be at least 50%, unless special circumstances are defined. If the IXP is using less than 50% after one year, what happens? Will the assignment be deassigned?
If the answer is "yes, the assignment will be deassigned", does the RIPE NCC apply some form of threshold to determine whether or not to deassign? I.e. if the assignment less than exactly 50%, or is there a practical slop factor in there?
Nick
participants (9)
-
Angela Dall'Ara -
Arnold Nipper -
Cynthia Revström -
Leo Vegoda -
Matthias Wichtlhuber -
Nick Hilliard -
Randy Bush -
Steven Bakker -
Tore Anderson