[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

Hi Garry,

On 10/20/15 4:12 PM, Garry Glendown wrote:
> Guten Tag,
>> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 14:46:54 +0200 (+0200), Marco Schmidt wrote:
>> :    https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05
>>
>>  From the proposed text:
>>    5.1.3.2. There is enough space in the free pool to perform the allocation
>>
>> Is there a definition of "enough space in the free pool"?  Is it a
>> single /22?
>>
> According to the proposal I'd say yes ... of course, that's the basic
> use case of a pool - to use it.
>
> Anyway, maybe I have overlooked it, but there doesn't seem to be a
> provision as to whether an actual need is documented, e.g. less than 25%
> free of currently assigned space or less than 1 /24 available, whichever
> is less.
we did not intend to include need based criteria back to the IPv4 
policy. It would be very difficult.
Imagine that I am an LIR and have a /22, this policy proposal is 
approved and I am using a /24 only. As there is no requirement for needs 
based justification, I can register a /23,/24 assignment to a 
'potential' customer and delete it once I got the second /22 allocation.

We could add in the policy that a small 'audit' (ARC) should be 
performed to verify that the LIR has recorded in the RIPE Database 
assignments for all the already used space. This way, we could help the 
registration goal.
> -garry
>
cheers,
elvis