Minimum allocation size
Dear all, The RIPE NCC has been monitoring the consumption rates of the initial /19 allocations given to new members over the last couple of years. The results clearly show that a significant amount of these allocations are far from fully used. The majority of these allocations are in fact not used more than 50%. Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns. We will however present the community with clear results and statistics in the lir-wg at the coming RIPE meeting in Budapest for further discussion regarding this proposed policy change. We are looking forward to hearing the community's input on this matter in a constructive and fruitful discussion next week. Kind regards, Nurani Nimpuno Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC
Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno:
Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns.
How is a new LIR going to announce their routes then? s. -- Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill mailto: lucks@indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2
Sascha Luck wrote:
Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno:
Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns.
How is a new LIR going to announce their routes then?
This is a very good point, the only way round this is to have a mid way transit point so 2 companies would share an announcment of a /19 i can not see very many people agreeing to that. Maybe if 2 the registries have a common upstream provider the provider would agree to aggregate, but even then this causes problems when changing providers. Do you have any more concrete proposals than the basic statement? Regards, Stephen Burley UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
s.
-- Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill mailto: lucks@indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2
Dear all, The purpose of my initial mail was simply to draw you attention to this coming discussion. We have a full set of data and statistics that we wish to present to the community in the lir-wg at the coming RIPE meeting in Budapest. I believe it is more useful to discuss the matter in detail once all facts have been presented to you. This is a policy change that has taken place in both the APNIC and ARIN region, where the RIRs notified their respective communities of this policy change. As a result of this, routing filters have been adjusted accordingly and /20s are currently being announced without any problem. We therefore are not greatly concerned about the practical implications of such a change. We do however want the community's input as to whether such a change is desirable in the RIPE region. As we will have representatives from both APNIC and ARIN present in the coming RIPE meeting, we propose to discuss this in more detail next week. Statistics and data from our region will be presented together with arguments both for and against such a change. Kind regards, Nurani Stephen Burley <stephenb@uk.uu.net> writes: * Sascha Luck wrote: * * > Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno: * > > Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing * > > the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order * > > to * > > accommodate this change in the usage patterns. * > * > How is a new LIR going to announce their routes then? * * This is a very good point, the only way round this is to have a mid way * transit point so 2 companies would share an announcment of a /19 i can * not see very many people agreeing to that. Maybe if 2 the registries * have a common upstream provider the provider would agree to aggregate, * but even then this causes problems when changing providers. Do you have * any more concrete proposals than the basic statement? * * Regards, * Stephen Burley * UUNET EMEA Hostmaster * * * * * > * > * > s. * > * > -- * > Sascha Luck | Multimedia Infrastructure Group * > Eircom PLC | Internet House / Teach Idirline * > phone: +353-1-7010900 | 26-34 TempleBar / Barra an Teampaill * > mailto: lucks@indigo.ie | Dublin 2 / Baile Atha Cliath 2 * *
Sascha Luck wrote:
Thus spoke Nurani Nimpuno:
Due to these low usage rates, the RIPE NCC is considering changing the initial allocation size from the current /19 to a /20, in order to accommodate this change in the usage patterns.
How is a new LIR going to announce their routes then?
Does anyone have any estimates on how much more routes this change would cause? I would suspect that this would take several years before even a 10% increase would be seen. Since this does not mean that you have to break the current aggregations. We have found this /19 to be rather large. We are a merger of about 20 small ISPs and also several LIRs. Now we are in the process of either filling up several /19 (since returning them to RIPE was a bigger job) and renumbering ISPs that never became LIRs. Starting with a /20 and somehow getting all of the ISPs to become LIRs would be great. Low cost entry LIRs at /20 and some simple web-based method for allocating the space (get them hooked!). Once they fill their /20 they'd have to become real LIRs. Unfortunately I can't guarantee that this actually saves address space in the long run. Since these mergers that we have seen here in Finland are bound to happen everywhere else once the market penetration is high enough. -- Niilo Neuvo >>>^<<< niilo.neuvo@saunalahti.fi CTO /$\ +358 (0) 50 5611042 (mobile) SAUNALAHTI Oyj | | +358 (0) 50 85611042 (fax) .88.744/7.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.oOOOo.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.744/7.88.74
participants (4)
-
Niilo Neuvo -
Nurani Nimpuno -
Sascha Luck -
Stephen Burley