[address-policy-wg] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Clean up)

On 26 July 2013 07:32, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:


> Second, on a more pragmatic level, when we hit IPv4 depletion last year,
> the requirement to demonstrate need in order to receive initial
> allocations changed. It is no longer "specify how many addresses do you
> need?", but a boolean "do you need more than 0 addresses? yes/no".
> Demonstrating the need for 1 IPv4 address is, in my opinion, merely a
> formality - anyone could do that with almost no effort.

<specific bit>

However, I know of several organisations who refer to the requirement
to require IP address when asking for them from customers using the
line:

"We have to be able to justify the needs basis to get address space
from RIPE and they require us to make sure that you have a need for
the address space too"

By removing a need at the LIR/RIR boundary you will create a problem
at the Customer/LIR boundary.

So keeping the text about need but removing the conservation goal bit
is actually a desirable outcome.

<general bit>

I think the goal of making life easier is nice but I fear we are
rearranging deck chairs again :)


J
--

James Blessing
07989 039 476