DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)

Hi,

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:09:32AM +0100, David Freedman wrote:
> Agree, i've always treated such requests from PI Applicants as valid "infrastructure" purpose, 
> NCC have always agreed, surely this is a non-issue?

Well, the question came up on this list (on whether "web server hosting"
would be a valid purpose for IPv6 PI), and it seem that other people had 
issues requesting IPv4 PI for customers that do "web server hosting".

So at least some clarification might be helpful, if only to help
the hostmasters (IPRAs) to cause less irritation due to different
interpretations on both sides...

Maybe we can get a few words from the NCC on how PI requests are evaluated 
in the context of "we want to run web servers in that space" today?

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  128645

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090722/c77b3abd/attachment.sig>