<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><span></span></div><div><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br>Hello Tore,</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br>On 20 Sep 2013, at 22:42, Tore Anderson <<a href="mailto:tore@fud.no">tore@fud.no</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><div><span>Hi again Filiz,</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>"keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>IP"?</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>You are comparing apples to oranges here (allocations to assignments).</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">I do not think I am doing that. </span></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">I just took your own exact words and put them in a form of a question.</span><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">But </span><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; ">lets move on to the topic and to the point, even if you think I am doing that.</span><div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>The "easy" part is to document "need" enough to get an *allocation* from</span><br><span>the NCC. "Need" for allocations comes from one thing only: Intent to</span><br><span>make assignments. If you can document an intent to make a valid</span><br><span>assignment for one (1) IPv4 address, you have a valid need for an</span><br><span>allocation. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, there is</span><br><span>only one size allocation the NCC can delegate to its members (/22).</span><br><span>Thus, by submitting a ripe-583 form documenting an intended assignment</span><br><span>of 1 IPv4 address (or a /32 if you prefer), you have also automatically</span><br><span>qualified for your initial and final /22 allocation. Anyone can do that,</span><br><span>it is not heavy bureaucracy at all.</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Good, then there is no need to change this in the policy for allocations.</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; ">And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC.</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; ">Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording:</div><div style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; "><br></div><div><span style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;">3. LIR must </span><span style="text-align: left; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and </span><em style="text-align: left; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(26, 26, 26, 0.292969); -webkit-composition-fill-color: rgba(175, 192, 227, 0.230469); -webkit-composition-frame-color: rgba(77, 128, 180, 0.230469); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation.</em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><em style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br></em></div><div style="text-align: left;">replacing what you proposed:</div><div style="text-align: left;">3. <em style="text-align: -webkit-auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; ">The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation</em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><em style="text-align: -webkit-auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br></em></div><div style="text-align: left;"><em style="text-align: -webkit-auto; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; "><br></em></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><br><span>As described above, this is not being removed. Since an assignment must</span><br><span>be sized at least 1 address (or larger), a check-box requiring the</span><br><span>requesting LIR to confirm assignments will be made from the allocation</span><br><span>is functionally identical to today's current practise.</span><br><span></span><br></blockquote><div><br></div>Confirming to make assignments on its own is not enough in my belief.</div><div>But I would support a more explicit need-justification requirement as above.</div><div><br></div><div>Filiz</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div></body></html>