Hello, I am currently doing some work for a small ISP with a fair number of clients, that wants to get a sub-allocation (in accordance with the new sub-allocations policy). We are going to request a /20 allocation from our primary uplink. However, we may have difficulties in showing usage for a /20 assignment for ourselves and our current customers (we're not far from it, though), but we need this allocation to deal with near-future customers. We are also going to request an AS in order to be properly multi-homed, which means we need the /20 right away to avoid prefix filters. We could of course, in accordance with the RIPE community's "slow-start" mechanism, start with a smaller allocation, or even just request assignments for ourselves, our customers, and then new customers as we go along, but this would mean lots of CIDR blocks, instead of just one /20. We are also going to request an AS in order to be properly multi-homed, due to prefix filters, having many small blocks is not an option. Becoming a LIR is not an option just now, due to various financial and political reasons. Now, my question to the list is, when will the sub-allocation policy be operational, and how will one request such an allocation? Presumably, RIPE will provide a sample allocation request form, any idea when? Any ideas on how to do this without a sub-allocation? Any way for our uplink to "reserve" a /20, which would then origin from our AS, and then assign chunks of it to us as we go along, maybe? Our uplink's AW is /24, and they don't have any room within their current allocations to give us a /20, so they would have to request this specifically from RIPE. Thanks in advance for any comments and/or suggestions. -- Kristófer Sigurðsson
Hi Kristofer, Kristofer Sigurdsson <kristofer@nh.is> writes: [...]
Now, my question to the list is, when will the sub-allocation policy be operational, and how will one request such an allocation? Presumably, RIPE will provide a sample allocation request form, any idea when?
The policy will be implemented soon. However, we need to complete some updates to some internal software, first. We also need to introduce a new status attribute value into the database. With regards to request forms: the policy does not require LIRs to send requests to the RIPE NCC. Instead, the maximum sub-allocation size is linked to an LIR's Assignment Window.
Any ideas on how to do this without a sub-allocation? Any way for our uplink to "reserve" a /20, which would then origin from our AS, and then assign chunks of it to us as we go along, maybe? Our uplink's AW is /24, and they don't have any room within their current allocations to give us a /20, so they would have to request this specifically from RIPE.
If the upstream LIR does not have sufficient address space to make an assignment (or sub-allocation) then they can request an additional allocation. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
Hi Leo, leo vegoda, Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:01:46AM +0100 : [...]
With regards to request forms: the policy does not require LIRs to send requests to the RIPE NCC. Instead, the maximum sub-allocation size is linked to an LIR's Assignment Window.
According to the draft, the maximum size of a sub-allocation is 400% of a LIR's AW each year. Since our request is 1600% of our upstream LIR's AW, doesn't that mean they'll have to forward our request to RIPE, just like they have to do for our conventional assignment requests? Thank you for your reply. -- Kristófer Sigurðsson
Hi Kristofer, Kristofer Sigurdsson <kristofer@nh.is> writes:
Hi Leo,
leo vegoda, Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 10:01:46AM +0100 :
[...]
With regards to request forms: the policy does not require LIRs to send requests to the RIPE NCC. Instead, the maximum sub-allocation size is linked to an LIR's Assignment Window.
According to the draft, the maximum size of a sub-allocation is 400% of a LIR's AW each year. Since our request is 1600% of our upstream LIR's AW, doesn't that mean they'll have to forward our request to RIPE, just like they have to do for our conventional assignment requests?
We won't be publishing request forms for LIRs wishing to sub-allocate more than 400% of their AW. We do not believe there is any reliable way for the RIPE NCC to evaluate such a request. This is because the request will, in most cases, be based on the predicted needs of predicted customers. Unlike assignments, no network plan justifying a request can be made. This is the main reason for delegating responsibility for sub- allocations to LIRs and basing it on their AW. Anyone needing a /20 could become an LIR and would receive it as long as they could demonstrate a need for efficient use of a /22 within the next three months. (Or existing use or a combination of the two). If you can suggest a reliable method of evaluating requests for a sub- allocation, and there is a demonstrated need for this, we would of course look at introducing a request form. Kind regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
Hi, as the one who made the Sub-Allocation proposal, let me try to clarify a few things. On Wed, Feb 12, 2003 at 12:46:18PM +0000, Kristofer Sigurdsson wrote:
I am currently doing some work for a small ISP with a fair number of clients, that wants to get a sub-allocation (in accordance with the new sub-allocations policy). We are going to request a /20 allocation from our primary uplink. However, we may have difficulties in showing usage for a /20 assignment for ourselves and our current customers (we're not far from it, though), but we need this allocation to deal with near-future customers. We are also going to request an AS in order to be properly multi-homed, which means we need the /20 right away to avoid prefix filters.
Sub-Allocation size should not be based on routing considerations. If you get a /22 (or similar), and someone "out there" is not accepting that announcement, packets will always travel over your upstream's aggregate (/16 or whatever they announce), so you can be reached.
We could of course, in accordance with the RIPE community's "slow-start" mechanism, start with a smaller allocation, or even just request assignments for ourselves, our customers, and then new customers as we go along, but this would mean lots of CIDR blocks, instead of just one /20.
Depending on the layout and fragemntation of your upstream's network, it might be a good compromise to start with a smaller sub-allocation, but "keep" the remaining part of a /20 available in case you need it. If you really need the /20 quickly, it will be there. (If the address space is not there, I suggest that your upstream talks to the RIPE hostmasters how to solve that - a new allocation might be required. Maybe they can also demonstrate proper assignments of /23s and get their AW raised...) [..]
Now, my question to the list is, when will the sub-allocation policy be operational, and how will one request such an allocation? Presumably, RIPE will provide a sample allocation request form, any idea when?
There's no official request form (yet) because the sub-allocation thing is something that's happening between you and your upstream. The NCC is /not/ involved here (normally).
Any ideas on how to do this without a sub-allocation? Any way for our uplink to "reserve" a /20, which would then origin from our AS, and then assign chunks of it to us as we go along, maybe?
This would be the traditional way that people have been doing it before the sub-allocation policy. It's messy, cause you can't properly document what's happening. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 56285 (56029) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes: [...]
(If the address space is not there, I suggest that your upstream talks to the RIPE hostmasters how to solve that - a new allocation might be required. Maybe they can also demonstrate proper assignments of /23s and get their AW raised...)
If an LIR would like us to review their AW they just need to send an e- mail to <lir-help@ripe.net>. We actively review LIRs' AWs very few requests. However, we're always happy to look again if requested. Regards, -- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
leo vegoda <leo@ripe.net> writes:
Gert Doering <gert@space.net> writes:
[...]
(If the address space is not there, I suggest that your upstream talks to the RIPE hostmasters how to solve that - a new allocation might be required. Maybe they can also demonstrate proper assignments of /23s and get their AW raised...)
If an LIR would like us to review their AW they just need to send an e- mail to <lir-help@ripe.net>. We actively review LIRs' AWs very few
s/very/every/ Gah! the dangers of spell checkers :-)
requests. However, we're always happy to look again if requested.
Regards,
-- leo vegoda RIPE NCC Registration Services
participants (3)
-
Gert Doering -
Kristofer Sigurdsson -
leo vegoda