Hi, after having read several opinions in this thread, I still don't agree to some points. I do think, the policy as proposed would represent a drawback for start-ups entering the market.
-----Urspruengliche Nachricht----- Von: RIPE NCC Staff [SMTP:ncc@ripe.net] Gesendet am: Freitag, 15. Juni 2001 17:06 An: lir-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Initial PA Allocation Criteria
Dear all,
Further to my mail on PA Allocation criteria (see below), here follows a concrete proposal, including details of the actual criteria to be determined. Very little feedback was received on the last mail asking for input on the actual details of such criteria. Therefore, in order to move forward and establish the details of these criteria, please find below a clear proposal of criteria for the initial PA Allocation received by a newly established Local IR.
Proposed Criteria for Initial /20 PA Allocation ----------------------------------------------- The Local IR is required to:
- Demonstrate previous efficient utilisation of a /22 (1024 addresses).
Or
- Demonstrate immediate need for a /22
Renumbering: If current address space held by the Local IR amounts to a /22 or less, the Local IR is required to renumber that address space into
Take a start-up access provider x.net that wants to be multi-homed. This proposal in turn means x.net will either have to make up figures to create this immediate need or will have to start with PI space. Will they get PI space without having enough customers? - no! I think taken the policy, those providers will have to start their business being single-homed with PA address space from their upstream provider. This is a major disadvantage. Only after having a /22 filled, the company could start to apply for a LIR, a somewhat time-consuming process. With a successful business, x.net will already have a /21 of borrowed PA space announced. the
PA Allocation it will receive from the RIPE NCC.
Once x.net has reached the status of a LIR they can become multi-homed. Will they get their address space routed? Only if it is declared PI. If so, they should definitely not be forced to renumber. If x.net uses other one's PA so far, they will have to renumber for routability. X.net will have to approach their customers to renumber their network. Who of the readers would choose x.net as provider where you know you'd have to renumber at some stage? This is the second major disadvantage.
Can the lir-wg agree with the above proposed criteria? If no further objections are raised I would like to suggest that the RIPE NCC moves forward and implements this policy.
Honestly, I believe the community should take measures to preserve address space. The lowering of the initial assignment to /20 was such a measure. The proposal to revoke allocations is another good one. But I do object to this proposal, although our company is beyond this stage.
Please let us know if you are not in agreement with the above.
Kind regards,
Nurani Nimpuno
+------------------------------------+ | Nurani Nimpuno | | Internet Address Policy Manager | | RIPE Network Co-ordination Centre | | http://www.ripe.net | +------------------------------------+
Kind regards Karsten - ------------------------------------------------------------- Karsten Koepp Core network planning IP Lambdanet Communications GmbH (AS13237) FirstMark Communications GmbH Guenther-Wagner-Allee 13 D-30177 Hannover (Germany) Phone +49 (0)511 / 84 88 - 12 55 Fax +49 (0)511 / 84 88 - 12 69 Mobile +49 (0)178 / 3 62 - 12 55 mailto:Karsten.Koepp@firstmark.de News & Facts finden Sie auf unserer Website: www.firstmark.de - ------------------------------------------------------------- ------- End of Forwarded Message