Hans Peter, what is your intention with regards to item J on the agenda? Leo's message gave inconclusive and incomplete information about the PI task force work, merely citing a few bullet points with expressions such as "there was some support for this". I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation. I haven't seen any description of the options discussed at the TF and what were the arguments for some having "some support" and others "less support". I reckon background for this would help immensely in carrying out a sensible discussion. I guess that according to your mail regarding the policy process at RIPE, the item is not meant to rubber stamp any policy change at this time but if progress is to be expected on a timely manner, a concrete problem statement with options analysis would go a long way in avoiding discussion loops. Also, how does the outcome of item J affect item K? regards, Joao Damas On Thursday, August 14, 2003, at 12:26 AM, Hans Petter Holen wrote:

RIPE 46 Address Policy WG Draft Agenda (v4)

A. Administrative Matters - scribe - list of participants - agenda - RIPE 45 lir-wg minutes http://www.ripe.net/ripe/wg/lir/r45-minutes.html - Actions

B. Report from RIPE NCC Registration Services (Leo Vegoda)

C. Internet Resource Status Report (Leo Vegoda)

D. ICANN ASO Address Council Report

E. Presentation of ASO Address Council Candidates http://www.ripe.net/ripencc/about/regional/aso2003/index.html Election in plenary

F. Address Policy WG Charter

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00075.html

G. RIPE-152 Charging by local registries http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/chargingbylirs.html

H. Policy Development Process

I. RIR-IANA relationship and procedures (Axel Pawlik)

J. PI Address Policy & Initial IPv4 allocation size

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00030.html K Final revised IPv4 policy

http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail-archives/address-policy-wg/2003/ msg00010.html

X. AOB

Y. Summary of actions arising from this meeting

Z. Open Microphone

Hi, Hans Petter Holen <hpholen@tiscali.no> wrote: [...]

...

I have not seen any description of the background, relevant data available (types of PI requests, for instance) and general problem categorisation.

Maybe we can ask leo to produce some data here ?

I've run through our statistics and have some data for you. About 89% of requests are for End Users, about 5.4% of requests are for the LIRs' own infrastructure, about 2.5% are for IXPs and another 2.5% are closed by the LIR sending the request before it's clear who will use the space. I hope this is helpful. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

Hi Joao, Joao Luis Silva Damas <joao@psg.com> wrote:

Leo,

thanks for the numbers. How about the rest of the information requested?

You wanted some information on the background, types of PI requests and other things. We don't keep statistics on the motivation for a request for PI address space. In fact, we don't ask for it in most cases. We just make sure that the requester is aware of the issues that come with small blocks of address space and any possible alternatives to PI address space. However, we do keep statistics on the stated use the address space will be put to. However, the majority of PI assignments we make will be used for more than one purpose. In these cases it is often impossible to label an assignment with a single category. Instead, we label it as "Miscellaneous". This year, the "Miscellaneous" category has been appropriate in about 69% of assignments. Another 19% were for office LANs. We also had 4% used for server hosting, 3% for broadband services, about 1% for P2P links and about 1% for GPRS services. [...]

89% of the requests seems to be an indication of a need for this type of assignments, yet there seems to be "some support" to end it.

Can we have a look at the arguments that were discussed about this subject?

I asked the PI Task Force whether it might be better to just publish an archive of the discussion on the web site. There was no object and so I have asked our Ops people to put it up later today. It will be available from: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/about/maillists.html Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services Manager

...

thanks for the numbers. How about the rest of the information requested?

You wanted some information on the background, types of PI requests and other things.

We don't keep statistics on the motivation for a request for PI address space. In fact, we don't ask for it in most cases. We just make sure that the requester is aware of the issues that come with small blocks of address space and any possible alternatives to PI address space.

However, we do keep statistics on the stated use the address space will be put to. However, the majority of PI assignments we make will be used for more than one purpose. In these cases it is often impossible to label an assignment with a single category. Instead, we label it as "Miscellaneous".

This year, the "Miscellaneous" category has been appropriate in about 69% of assignments. Another 19% were for office LANs. We also had 4% used for server hosting, 3% for broadband services, about 1% for P2P links and about 1% for GPRS services.

From what I remember of what you said in Barcelona, the absolute numbers of PI space assigned is really low though, right? - kurtis -