Hi, On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:45:19PM -0700, David R Huberman wrote:
(1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
I disagree. The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation. [..] Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering* the minimum allocation size.
Sounds I misunderstood your point (it following the "irresponsibility" claim it could be read as "initial size should be a /26" :-) ). [..]
(2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?
Yes. Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there are fewer of those.
Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your opinion?
I'm not sure. I feel that a /22 is a good value - it means "25% of the /20", and is large enough (4 "class C") that people need to get a feel for network planning, subnet structure and whatnot. But I don't have any hard feelings on this, maybe a /21 is better ("raise the hurdle") or a /23 ("we should not be overly restrictive").
(4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation from RIPE?
Yes. If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network.
You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately from their upstream's aggregate.
Hmmm, yes. But otherwise, what good would it be to get their own address space if they are not going to multi-home it -- and on the other hand, *if* they are going to multi-home, what good would it do them to hold address space that they can only use single-homed?
I don't want to make such assumptions.
If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to have.
Maybe, yes. But then, I haven't yet met anyone that went LIR in the last years that did *not* do it to get "address space they could announce to whoever they like", which usually also meant "going multi-homed sooner or later". But this is only Germany :-)
I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?)
I don't think it will hit the wait queue, but it *will* increase the effort required at audit time. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299