Hello, /24 is de-facto standard accepted in routing tables these days and also /24 was used in large scale during PI assignments - so I don't see any problem in reduction of initial (minimal) IPv4 allocation. So i support this idea. But I would like to keep option for asking more than /24 (up to /22 maximum, as was decided in the past) LIRs eligible for allocation, if LIR properly documents his request.
From my own practice there're some LIR, where /24 is sufficient and they just become LIRs because there's no other real option to get independent addresses (old "PI") and with /22 we're just wasting limited resource. But there're also LIRs, where /22 will actively used.
I don't see any problems in terms of RFC 2050 mentioned here and memory contraints, providers had to upgrade their routers in meantime anyway (at least due to IPv6 adoption). Fragmentation up to /24 is long-term reality and we had to deal with it anyway. With regards, Daniel On 09/21/2017 01:43 PM, Marco Schmidt wrote:
Dear colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy proposal, 2017-03, "Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space", is now available for discussion.
The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4 allocation directly from the RIPE NCC before.
You can find the full proposal at: https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/
As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer.
At the end of the Discussion Phase, the proposer, with the agreement of the RIPE Working Group Chairs, decides how to proceed with the proposal.
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 20 October 2017.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
Sent via RIPE Forum -- https://www.ripe.net/participate/mail/forum