Dear colleagues,
Reading the comments on this list, I would like to provide some
clarification.
If the proposal is accepted, it would only change the initial assignment
size and offer the option to "jump" directly to a /24 when at least 33
addresses are in use. The utilisation requirements for IXPs requesting
assignments larger than a /24 would remain unchanged.
When receiving requests for more than a /24, the RIPE NCC checks that
the IXP will need more than 50% of the assignment within one year. If
their growth rate is too slow and we expect that it will take more than
a year to exceed that utilisation threshold, we suggest that they
postpone their request.
Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Manager Registration Services
RIPE NCC
On 08/05/2023 15:56, Steven Bakker via address-policy-wg wrote:
On Thu, 2023-05-04 at 06:21 +0000, Matthias Wichtlhuber via address-
policy-wg wrote:
The problems in section 5 can be fixed easily, but it depends on
how the authors want to handle assignment upgrades / renumberings.
I'd suggest either dropping the 1Y utilisation requirement to e.g.
40%, or else that if you reach e.g. 80% current usage, you qualify
to receive an assignment of 2x the current, up to /22. Those
figures are plucked out of the air btw. The point with them is that
they are not 50%, which is obviously a magic number when the
natural increase of assignment size would be to double the size of
the block.
The goal of this part is to minimize renumberings while avoiding
greedy requests. Dropping the one year requirement to 40% is
reasonable if you think 50% is too harsh ("magic numbers"). We can
incorporate this change.
I believe that what Nick was getting at was that 50% is "magic" in the
sense that it creates a problem:
* a /24 has 254 usable addresses.
* a /23 has 510 usable addresses -> half of that is 255.
So, suppose you have used 230 addresses out of your /24. You apply for
and get a /23 and happily renumber.
Then, after one year, you have used 254 addresses. This is less than
half of the /23 (510/2 = 255), so according to the rules you'd have to
downgrade back to a /24 again. You can now no longer grow, unless you
immediately apply for a /23 again.
So we either live with this "bug" and trust that whoever has to perform
evaluation is "reasonable", or we find a numbers that don't cause these
kind of edge cases.
Cheers,
Steven
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
