Hi Nick,
> I can't work out what the proposed new section 7 is saying.
This paragraph only has an editorial change, it is already present in the
current policy. It covers the time threshold for returning space: after 180
days of disuse or from a new assignment received as per points 4 and 5.
> there are a bunch of problematic edge cases associated with section 5. E.g.
> what happens if an IXP has a /23 and has 254 IP addresses used after 1Y? They
> will be obliged to downgrade to a /24, according to the current text. Also I
> don't know what a special circumstance is.
> 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.
Regarding the "special circumstances": this was already present in the current
policy. I guess it is intended to give RIPE a little leeway to react to
unforeseen circumstances.
Kind regards,
Matthias
--
Dr.-Ing. Matthias Wichtlhuber
Team Lead Research and Development
------------------------------
DE-CIX Management GmbH
Lindleystr. 12, 60314 Frankfurt (Germany)
phone: +49 69 1730902 141
mobile: +49 171 3836036
fax: +49 69 4056 2716
e-mail: [email protected]
web: www.de-cix.net
------------------------------
DE-CIX Management GmbH
Executive Directors: Ivaylo Ivanov and Sebastian Seifert
Trade registry: District court (Amtsgericht) Cologne, HRB 51135
Registered office: Lichtstr. 43i, 50825 Cologne
________________________________________
Von: address-policy-wg <[email protected]> im Auftrag von Nick
Hilliard <[email protected]>
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 26. April 2023 16:59:59
An: Angela Dall'Ara
Cc: [email protected]
Betreff: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2023-01 - New Version Policy Proposal
(Reducing IXP IPv4 assignment default size to a /26)
Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 06/03/2023 10:43:
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.
two issues:
- I can't work out what the proposed new section 7 is saying.
- there are a bunch of problematic edge cases associated with section 5. E.g.
what happens if an IXP has a /23 and has 254 IP addresses used after 1Y? They
will be obliged to downgrade to a /24, according to the current text. Also I
don't know what a special circumstance is.
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.
Nick
--
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
