Allocation of IP Addresses
Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net
Thu Mar 14 10:38:16 UTC 1996
> Michael Dillon <michael at memra.com> writes:
> Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one
> RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
The RIPE NCC is not doing that.
What we are doing is quite similar to what the InterNIC does with one
very notable exception: We charge ISPs for registration service and we
audit their assignments so they have to have their act together. This
means there are significant resources involved in obtaining address
space from us rather than their transit provider. This causes ISPs to
make much more rational decisions about where to obtain their address
space. It also makes the rate with which new local registries are
established quite predictable which allows for some level of
rationalisation in allocation decisions.
Unfortunately the InterNIC is in no position to put ISPs before that
choice. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED!
We allocate a fixed size first allocation (currently /19s) to each and
every newly established local registry (ISP) *no matter what their
glorious plans are*. Further allocations are made *exlusivcely* based
on past usage rates which is reasonably rational. Remember that we
We will do our best to place subsequent allocations such that they can
be aggregated with previous ones. We are reasonably successful at this
and that is probably why the misunderstanding above is quite common.
Formally however we make no guarantee whatsoever about the placement of
allocations. This gives us the possibility to react flexibly and do the
right thing most of the time.
Again, this is essentially the same policy as the InterNIC uses with
a few local variations. The main difference is that ISPs have to expend
resources to get service.
More information about the NANOG