Hi Edwin,
Thank you on stepping forward on this. And I think that it would make sense to have a discussion on this with a policy proposal on the table.
As you mentioned, this has been brought up multiple times already, so it would be good to see if we can get this sorted.
It would be nice if the AP-WG members could provide some insight if the would support (or not) a policy proposal as suggested.
Regards,
Speaking as one of the Co-Chairs,
Erik Bais
From:
address-policy-wg <address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net> on behalf of Edwin Verheul <edwin.verheul@surf.nl>
Date: Thursday, 17 November 2022 at 16:24
To: "address-policy-wg@ripe.net" <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>
Subject: [address-policy-wg] Minimum size for IPv4 temporary assignments
Dear colleagues of the Address Policy Working Group,
During (my first!) RIPE85 there was short discussion about the minimal size for IPv4 temporary assignments in this workgroup.
The policy for temporary IPv4 assignments requires you to use 50% of the assigned addresses [1].
This requirement pushes events or experiments into smaller assignments less than /24’s, which are mostly unroutable on the internet.
This is mentioned before by Marco Schmidt [2] in October 2022 and Randy Bush [3] in Januari 2022.
It looks to me this is a legitimate reason to propose this in a policy change:
Elvis Velea and myself are willing to (co) author this proposal. We will do our best to hand in the proposal by the end of this year.
Any thoughts on this?
Kind regards,
Edwin Verheul
SURF
AS1103
[1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-587#utilisation-rates
[2]
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2022-October/013598.html
[3]
https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2022-January/013438.html