[address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations

Hi David,

Thanks for helping me clarify this. I don't see a reason for a 30-day
rule because I think current policy will help us here. Allow me to
explain. I'm assuming that most organizations will ask for a new
allocation quickly after reaching the 80% usage mark on their current
space. Also, that LIR would then ask, within current policy, for a years
supply. Let's say for a period of 64 weeks because I'm lazy and I like
round numbers :-) Now if that LIR were to request a /15 and only get a
/17, it stands to reason that they don't pass the 80% mark again for
about 16 weeks. If they get a /18, 8 weeks, a /19, 4 weeks, and so on.
In order for them to come back within a day we're down to /23s anyway.

So, a LIR that comes back immediately is clearly up to something fishy
or might not be completely truthful in filling out their templates.

I'm not convinced we can't work out a way to give this a proper
write-up, but currently I just want to see whether the general idea has
merit according to the community. So, does it ?

Best,

Remco

-----Original Message-----
From: David Conrad [mailto:drc at virtualized.org] 
Sent: donderdag 7 augustus 2008 22:31
To: Remco van Mook
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations

Remco,

On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:
> I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a
> lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting.

If the overhead is not a lot (something I suspect the request  
evaluation staff at RIPE-NCC might disagree with), it isn't clear to  
me how this would significantly impact address distribution.

> Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of
> requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with  
> it.

But wouldn't this be the outcome with your proposal as written since  
the folks most likely to consume the most address space are the ones  
with the resources to throw at writing a zillion applications?  Or are  
you assuming there would be a significant increase in the number of  
requests submitted essentially simultaneously such that distribution  
of the fragments would be distributed more evenly over a number of  
requesters?

> Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has  
> been
> proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy.

Or you could put a wait time between requests, e.g., a new request  
from the same organization will only be reviewed (say) 30 days after  
the last request.  If nothing else, this could increase RIPE-NCC's  
membership fee revenues (1/2 :-)).

Regards,
-drc



Any opinions expressed in the email are those of the individual and not necessarily of the company. This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and solely for the use of the intended recipient and do not constitute an offer or acceptance by Equinix, Inc., Equinix Europe Ltd or any of their group entities to buy or sell any products or services in any jurisdiction. If you have received this email in error please delete this email immediately and notify the IT manager.

This communication is sent on behalf of one of the European entities in the Equinix, Inc. Group. The ultimate holding company in Europe is Equinix Europe Ltd whose registered address is Quadrant House, Floor 6, 17 Thomas More Street, Thomas More Square, London E1W 1YW and the Company's registered number is 6293383. The registration details of other Group entities are available at www.eu.equinix.com