Re: [address-policy-wg] 2011-04 New Policy Proposal (Extension of the Minimum Size for IPv6 Initial Allocation)
All, I support the thought that LIRs should be able to get up to a /29 as an initial allocation with no documentation required. However, that doesn't mean I support the policy proposal in its current form. Here's why. In the current policy text, it's very clear cut that unless you provide documentation (which means you've thought about how to deploy), you get a /32. I would not want a situation where people get a /29 without thinking, making a mess of it and then come back. So you could get a /29 if you asked for it specifically, otherwise you get a /32. So I would propose the following: Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For initial allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary. Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure. --snip-- And, of course, using up your /29 in one go means no additional adjacent reserved address space on the RIPE NCC books, but that's an implementation issue :) Best Remco van Mook Director of Interconnection, Europe remco.vanmook@eu.equinix.com +31 61 135 6365 MOB EQUINIX 51-53 Great Marlborough Street London, W1F 7JT, United Kingdom On 21-10-11 12:44, "Emilio Madaio" <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
A new RIPE Policy Proposal has been made and is now available for discussion.
You can find the full proposal at:
www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2011-04
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 18 November 2011.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, 4 Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW. Registered in England and Wales, No. 6293383.
On 10/24/11 3:29 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote:
All,
I support the thought that LIRs should be able to get up to a /29 as an initial allocation with no documentation required.
Hi, Good :)
However, that doesn't mean I support the policy proposal in its current form. Here's why. In the current policy text, it's very clear cut that unless you provide documentation (which means you've thought about how to deploy), you get a /32. I would not want a situation where people get a /29 without thinking, making a mess of it and then come back. So you could get a /29 if you asked for it specifically, otherwise you get a /32.
Well, this part was meant to figure it out when implementing changed policy. My suggestion was that IPRA warns LIR that is requesting the initial IPv6 allocation, that /32 means different charges in the future than /29, so LIR can decide and get what they need. I was warned, that this is implementation specific issue and should not be part of the policy. Being said that, /32 still exists as minimum alloc size just to prevent someone saying "RIPE-NCC would like to pay us more" - we already discussed that in Dubrovnik, remember? :)
So I would propose the following:
Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For initial allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.
Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure.
So, your suggestion is to give out /32 by default for clueless, but if someone requests more (up to /29) - fine, here it is. Hmm... looks like this makes sense. What others think?
--snip--
And, of course, using up your /29 in one go means no additional adjacent reserved address space on the RIPE NCC books, but that's an implementation issue :)
With binary chops one must be very unlucky to get non-expansible space :) Cheers, Jan
Hi there, On 24 Oct 2011, at 14:29, Remco Van Mook <Remco.vanMook@eu.equinix.com> wrote:
Organisations that meet the initial allocation criteria are eligible to receive an initial allocation of /32. For initial allocations up to /29 no additional documentation is necessary.
Organisations may qualify for an initial allocation greater than /29 by submitting documentation that reasonably justifies the request. If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure.
Support the policy in general (so please implement in some similar form after discussion) but strongly support the exact methodology proposed by Remco above. Andy
participants (3)
-
Andy Davidson -
Jan Zorz ＠ go6.si -
Remco Van Mook