[address-policy-wg] informal discussion about removing 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site

Hello,
I support section 5.4.2 removal as proposed. It just adds additional
administrative overhead to NCC and validity of such assignments can be
eventually reviewed during standard ARC process.

- Daniel

On 5/22/19 4:25 PM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via address-policy-wg wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As commented this morning at the end of the WG meeting, I've been thinking about this issue many times and in fact, in AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, as part of *other* more complex IPv6 policy proposals, we successfully achieved consensus on removing the equivalent text.
> 
> ARIN has also changed this. In my opinion, the way they handle it, is too complex and not needed, but if someone want to read: https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/#6-5-8-2-2-extra-large-sites
> 
> I've not (yet) done this in RIPE because I thought it is a so small change that doesn't make sense to tackle alone, but this morning I heard otherwise.
> 
> So ... here we are. By the way, as I always state, I will love some other folks that are willing to contribute, if so let me know in private so we can even organize an on-site meeting. However, in this case I think this policy proposal is just an "empty" one (only remove text, so nothing to draft ...) ... see below.
> 
> This is our actual text (https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-707#assignments_shorter):
> ***
> 5.4.2. Assignments shorter than a /48 to a single End Site
> When a single End Site requires an assignment shorter than a /48, it must request the assignment with documentation or materials that justify the request. Requests for multiple or additional prefixes exceeding a /48 assignment for a single End Site will be processed and reviewed (i.e., evaluation of justification) at the RIR/NIR level.
> 
> Note: There is no experience at the present time with the assignment of multiple network prefixes to the same End Site. Having the RIR review all such assignments is intended to be a temporary measure until some experience has been gained and some common policies can be developed. In addition, additional work at defining policies in this space will likely be carried out in the near future.
> ***
> 
> In my opinion (as I've done in other RIRs), we should just *remove* the complete section.
> 
> Extreme example case. If an LIR decides to assign /47 to all their customers, and in the future,  they need to come back to the NCC for more space, they will need to justify it according to the existing policy at that time.
> 
> I may understand (even if I don't agree) that somebody want to have the NCC keep doing some evaluation on this. If we want to go this way, we will need to define with a short text what we want.
> 
> So, opinions? 
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>  
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.theipv6company.com
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>