(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.)?
I agree that there should be a policy and that it should be a minimum of a /21.
(3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, 50% utilization within one year)?
If RIPE is going to continue to assign PI space, then yes a policy should be established. We also need to consider what PI assignments are doing to the routing tables and whether there should be a minimum PI assignment size or whether RIPE should continue making PI assignments at all.
(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?
I agree with David's opinion in regards to this question. If the organization has justified the address space from RIPE, then they should be able to decide what to do with their current Address space from their upstream provider. Tanya -----Original Message----- From: owner-lir-wg@ripe.net [mailto:owner-lir-wg@ripe.net]On Behalf Of David R Huberman Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:05 PM To: Hans Petter Holen Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: Criteria for initial PA Allocation I need to put my own thoughts forward, too :>
(1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
Yes. It's enormously wasteful of a scarce resource and is one factor among many encouraging the RIPE NCC wait queue to be unacceptably long.
(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! The RIPE community is sufficiently advanced that imposing a minimum existence on requestors should not be a burden to significant regional economic development. I believe the minimum utilization size should be a /21, not a /22 as intimated by one member of the NCC staff. Organizations requesting a /20 from RIPE should be held to the *same guidelines* as everyone else as outlined in RFC 2050 - slow-start. If REQUESTOR A is efficiently utilizing a /21, they are certainly entitled, in the slow-start model, to request a /20 for their upcoming growth. But if REQUESTOR B is utilizing a /22, they are only entitled to a /21, not a /20. A /22 is too insignificantly sized to gauge the justification for a full /20. A /21 is one exponential factor greater - a statistically relevant distinction.
(3) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should implement a PI assignment policy establishing an assignment model consistent with the principles established for such assignments in RFC 2050 (25% utilization immediately, 50% utilization within one year)?
Since I'm the one who is proposing it, ayep. It has been said here by many people that PI assignments should only be for exactly what an organization needs. I contend that an organization should be given some flexibility in regards to future growth.
(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?
No. I think this is a fundamental flaw in the ARIN community's interpretations of RFC 2050 - it too heavily relies on the conservation principle and too easily discounts operational effects of such a policy. If ISP A is using a /21 from an upstream, and is able to justify a /20 from RIPE, the ISP should be entrusted to do what it wishes with the original /21 - return it, renumber it, keep it. The conservation principle is insignificantly served by forcing renumbering of /22s or /21s, in my opinion. Also, the administrative overhead of *enforcing* such a policy outweighs the benefit of the policy, in my opinion. It will encourage the wait queue to lengthen, not contract. /david