2016-05 New Policy Proposal (Synchronising the Initial and Subsequent IPv6 Allocation Policies) - HD-ratio
Hi all, As I already mention in the previous email, we are working already in the new version of this policy proposal, for the PDP review phase. One of the inputs that we got from the NCC is that our text: 5.2.1. a) a) Satisfies the evaluation threshold of past address utilisation in terms of the number of sites in units of /56 or /48 assignments (or other size up to /48, depending on what is being assigned to End Sites). To this end, the HD-Ratio [RFC 3194] is used to determine the utilisation thresholds. is that it may create some confusion, because the actual HD-ratio table (10. Appendix A: HD-Ratio), is only including the calculation referred to /56 (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-655#10--appendix-a--hd-ratio). So, to make it more clear, we may just add to the section 10, new columns/section for the /48 case. An example of HD-ratio calculation, as used in other RIRs, is available at http://www.lacnic.net/en/web/lacnic/manual-13. However, we have another alternative, and we will like to get inputs from the WG about this choice. The alternative is to remove the HD-ratio for the subsequent allocation, and base the subsequent allocation criteria in a simpler concept, which is the utilization of a given % of the existing allocation. So what do you think about: 5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space. or b. Can justify new needs (which can’t be satisfied within the previous allocation), according to the initial allocation size criteria as described in section 5.1.2. This will mean also removing section 5.8 (HD-Ratio), which is the definition of HD-Ratio, section 5.2.2 (applied HD-Ratio) which will not be relevant anymore, the reference to the HD-Ratio in section 5.3 (LIR-to-ISP allocation), and 5.5 (Registration), which are only references, no “normative” issues, and the Appendix A (section 10, HD-Ratio table). It seems a complex change, but if you take a look at it, is quite simple. This has been done already in ARIN: https://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#six53 (they have a more complex text/criteria) The point is, if we get the WG feeling that this option is acceptable, we may go straight in the next document version including this change. The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it? So please, let’s know your thoughts on this possible improvement to this policy proposal. Regards, Jordi ********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.consulintel.es The IPv6 Company This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
Hi Jordi, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: [...]
So what do you think about:
5.2.1 Subsequent allocation criteria Subsequent allocation will be provided when an organisation (i.e. ISP/LIR): a. Shows utilization of 75% or more of their total addressing space.
How did you decide on 75%? Is that value of any particular significance or are there two parts to your question: firstly, should the HD-ratio be replaced with a single percentage and secondly a discussion about what that percentage might be? Kind regards, Leo Vegoda
Hi Jordi,
-----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces@ripe.net] On Behalf Of JORDI PALET MARTINEZ Sent: 18 December 2016 16:55
[...]
The alternative is to have this text (HD-ratio removal) proposed in a new policy proposal, once the actual one passes the PDP process. Clearly it is a longer process, which may take 3 extra months, but if there is consensus to do it at once, why wait for it?
I would recommend staying away from the HD-ratio expansion aspect for the time being as I suspect it could bog your main effort down. Indeed, this is one of the reasons why I didn't encompass subsequent allocations within 2015-03 (Assessment Criteria for IPv6 Initial Allocation Size) as there are a number of issues hiding under that rock and so I thought it best to stay well away! Moreover, the policy development process seems to work best when focussing on specific issues and whilst updating parts of the policy in isolation can lead to inconsistencies and conflict I don't think we have that risk here - the evolving text echoing initial allocation criteria for subsequent allocation assessments should be able to sit side-by-side with the extant HD-ratio justification with the latter being subject to discussion and possible alteration further down the line. Don't get me wrong; I do think that the whole subject of HD ratios should be put under the spotlight but it would serve those organisations that are struggling with the lack of more general criteria for subsequent allocations better if the current proposal on the table isn't held up by going down that route with this proposal. For what it's worth, I think HD-ratios are a sensible approach that cater for the differences in pain threshold for expansion of small and (very) large networks; my only issue with them is that at present they are the only means by which to justify additional address space hence my support for additional criteria being able to be considered (in addition to HD-ratios). Regards, Mathew
participants (3)
-
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
-
Leo Vegoda
-
Newton, Mathew C1 (ISS Des-Arch33-Arch)