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

Hi Sylvain,

Sascha already responded to some of your points, so I'll leave those at
that, but I wanted to respond to this one in particular:

> Because it is a good placement to survive, when you can get the 
> ressource and others can't, they die and you survive. Being a CEO the
> survival of my company and its ability to have necessary ressources
> during scarcity periods is a main concern. Fortunately enough my
> business is not using much IP ressource. Several of my clients do
> however, and some would be glad to get a /22 to be more "in
> confidence", while they can hardly justify a /24.

You, as an LIR hostmaster, are completely free to tell this client of
yours «No, you cannot get more than you need, therefore I will only be
assigning you a /24 for now. Come back later when you need more.»

2013-03 does not disenfranchise you in any way from doing so.

As for what reason to give to the client if he insists on being assigned
the /22, the most obvious one you pointed out yourself - being
conservative and restrictive about your LIR's remaining IPv4 inventory
is essential for your company's future ability to take on new customers
and thus its long-term ability to survive. Your survival is in your
client's best interest too; his continued use of the addresses you
assign him, however many, depends on it.

However, you can also point to the address policy when declining the
request, by telling your client something along the lines of: «Giving
you a /22 you do not need would be unfair to my future would-be
customers, as I would have then have nothing to assign to them. The RIPE
address policy mandates that the assignments I make are done fairly,
thus I am not at liberty to assign you the /22 you are asking for».

While the fairness requirement in question is a subjective value
judgement you will have to make for yourself, your prior messages to
this list leaves me with the impression that the above explanation would
be fully compatible with your value judgement on what fairness in
assignments looks like.

Best regards,
Tore Anderson