RE: [apnic-talk] Questions on microallocation assignment policy
Hi James,
(I'm answering an earlier mail)
>Yes I was referring to PI space.
>
>As I understand it, the intent of the proposal is to allow companies without
>resources to multi-home, access to resources to multi-home. A company with
It is my assumption, this is who it will appeal to, but it is not
exclusively intended to apply to those without resources.
>existing PI address space already has these resources.
But they may have valid reasons for requiring additional resources. Such as
having obtained PI address space (say a /24) in the pre-CIDR days and now
facing network expansion (say an additional /24), and the organisation is
multihomed - there may be situations when the organisation is unable to
obtain address space from their upstream. I dont see this policy as
exclusive of this type of organisation.
Do you think it should be?
>Should this be a case for the 'no questions asked' stick ?
For clarification, the current no-questions-asked policy says "if you have
3 or more discontiguous prefixes, and if you agree to renumber, you may
obtain a single prefix. This is a direct trade-off conservation for
aggregation.
>I meant, if renumbering is required, rather than having renumbering occur
>the next time additional space is required, reserve the next larger block.
But it seems to me you are suggesting something a bit like pre-CIDR days,
where address space was reserved for all applicants of IP addresses. What
we have left of that is the 202/8 swamp space, because most people did NOT
come back for address space.
>After this has been assigned, then renumbering would have to occur. Bang for
>buck wise its unlikely to be worth it.
>
> > My reaction to the proposal was an assumption that this was a single
> > allocation, and if the entity expands, then it would be reasonable to
> > rehome them into the 'normal' process and do the PI /20 allocation.
>
>Not really, if someone requires an initial /24, they may have requirements
>for an additional /24 later. In these cases it would be unreasonable to move
>them into a /20.
Well 'rehome them into a /20 allocation' when they meet the criteria. Not
otherwise. Renumbering is a requirement of the new criteria.
>This is probably not that much of an issues, I'd guess most people willing
>to outlay the kinda dollars required for a micro-assignment will not be dial
>ISP with an overactive appetite for address space and may only require their
>initial request.
That is my feeling also.
>I would disagree, the number of allocations seen as individual /24 but also
>have a covering aggregate shows people are concerned about the reachability
>of the de-aggregated netblocks, otherwise why bother with the aggregate ?
>Its not always traffic engineering.
>
>If the people with the filter mallet follow the RIR guidelines and filter at
>the minimum allocation /24 it sends a clear message, there is no (obvious)
It is not a new minimum allocation - it is an assignment which means that
re-assignment is not permitted. APNIC's minimum allocation is still a
/20. This may seem academic but I think it is an important distinction. To
say this is an allocation would be in direct conflict with the existing /20
minimum allocation policy.
Thanks for your feedback!
Anne
---
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *