Moin, am 24.09.2017 um 09:31 schrieb Daniel Suchy:
Hi,
you still pay only *membership* fee. It's not a per-IP cost, even if it can look like that. Old resource holders pays similar fee independently from number of IP addresses they hold.
Please don't get me started on that ... For the time being, assume I runa business and am a LIR already, and a customer who needs 2 /24 for his more-than-awesome service. Will I direct himto competitors that got /16s in the past, or will I opt for another LIR undercurrect policy, calculate that cost and present him with that bill? If all costs (another company, another LIR, etc.) are covered, why would I reject the deal?
One of goals is *conservation*, and initial assignment of /24 helps with that - and not each new LIR really needs /22. There're lot of organisationss having single /24 (old PI allocations) from the past and they're still happy with that. These were allocated to end users, are routed and also nobody concerned about routing table size.
Oh, they did, back then. That's the whole PA vs. PI thing[1], starting somewhere around 194/8or back, in the early 1990s. The idea was to assign huge amounts of address space to an LIR in the expectation it would be routed coherently. Didn't work in 194/8 due to lack of contractual clearance, IIRC 195/8 was the first "safe to filter" prefix? PI space back then was supplied from another netblock (193/8?), so filtering could be applied easily. But sometime later, a generic /24 filter was applied, and that's where we are today, AFAIK.
Since posibility of PI alocations was ceased, new organisations have to become "full LIR" - and then you receive /22, automatically - even you don't need it. We're simply wasting limited addres space here - just because something "simplified" and "automated".
No.A LIR is supposed to hand out addresses to customers based on customer needs (and contractual obligations to RIPE NCC). Shelling out a once-in- your-lifetime /22 prefix just makes sense, if this is an "old-school" LIR. It would typically use a /24 (routing threshold) for itself (www, mx), and seek for customers for the remainding 3 /24. Even if the company's legal entity has no use for v4, v4 address space does have a finacial value these days, so failure to secure that could be a punishable offence.
Alocating /24 to new LIRs with keeping possibility to earn up to /22 (in case of documented need) is solution in my eyes.
As stated elsewhere:anyone will be able to present "documented need" for the /22 ... so this is a moot point. Regards, -kai [1] https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-509#----pa-vs--pi-address-space