On 27/07/2009 17:07, Leo Vegoda wrote:
Right now, the policies for PA and PI are the same: if you qualify for a /28 of PA then you qualify for a /28 of PI. But if you change the policy so that when you qualify for a /28 of PA then you qualify for a /24 of PI then PI space becomes much more attractive because you get more space and it is independent of your ISP.
I deliberately left this out of the calculation, and perhaps phrased things slightly sloppily. It's a know unknown, or perhaps an unknown unknown, to borrow a cliche. Besides the two issues are still separate. Qualifying for /28 PA is a matter of just having 8 internet-connected machines within 1 year and the ability to configure a default route on each machine. Qualifying for /24 PI would be a matter of having 8 internet connected machines, a router, an ASN, more than one upstream transit partner or a bunch of peering partners and enough in-house or consultancy clue to make this all work. It's not rocket science, of course. But it does have a cost and it would be interesting to compare the cost of this scenario to the cost associated with becoming a LIR and requesting a minimum allocation (if all you're looking for is routable address space).
I don't know how to quantify this and maybe I'm wrong anyway. Nonetheless, I think this should be considered as a potential risk for a policy that allows /24 PI assignments based solely on a phrase as vague as "when routing is a major issue".
Yes, it's a risk, and should be noted explicitly in any proposal. I don't doubt that it would cause greater uptake of PI address assignment requests - and this is one of the reasons that this is not a pretty solution to the problem. On a side note, I wonder whether the lower number of requests for the year until may was due to the new contractual requirements. Nick