Hello, one thing should be considered here - this proposal in section 3b states, that minimum allocation sizes for the relevant /8 blocks will be updated if necessary. There're a lot of ranges with /21 longest prefix now. Some people have filters in accordance to (currently) RIPE-510 document. This may be source of some operational troubles, if longest prefixes will be changed frequently - as filters will have to be updated in some networks. There's no such requirement these days (only new prefixes need to be added). I'll rather see no changes in terms of "allowing" longer prefixes in other subnets. Changes here will more likely help some people deaggregate their prefixes in global table and only few prefixes will be announced rightly. Aggregation should be one of major goals, and even RIPE cannot enforce it, it at least should help here (and RIPE-510 is helpfull). This proposal goes against this goal sometimes, I think. Last /8 provides quite huge number of /22 to cover future requests long-term. I think, that returned space should be reserved/used for covering potential request for more than 1024 IP addresses in one block - as we cannot imagine future these days, and someone can have good reasons to obtain larger address space... and if will be some addresses available, I don't see any reason to reject the request. Due similar reasons - I don't support section 4 of new proposal (multiple allocations up to an equivalent of a /22). This will also cause changes in RIPE-510 and this will simplify address space deaggregation for many "bad guys". So, instead of applying "last /8 policy" to returned space, reserving returned space as we have reserved /16 from last /8 seems to be better option for me (and potentially serve assignments like /21). Current policies used for reusing returned space are sufficient and these can be applied anytime. Last /8 should be applied ONLY to last /8. And aggregation should be always keeped in mind, when some change in address policy is proposed. I don't support this proposal and I suggest changes in it mentioned above. With regards, Daniel On 05/20/2011 12:11 PM, Emilio Madaio wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A proposed change to RIPE Document ripe-509, "IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy for the RIPE NCC Service Region", is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-03/
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 17 June 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC