Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

  > Hank Nussbacher <HANK at VM.TAU.AC.IL> writes:
  > 
  > A /19 in Amsterdam makes sense as a maximum allocation.  A /19 in Uganda
  > doesn't.  I think due to different geographics we need to realize
  > that allocation policy has to be different depending on where you are.

Hank,

you miss the point.  It is *untenable* for the regional registry to get
into discussions about the size of the *initial* allocation.  Therefore
a local IR in Uganda choosing to be served by the NCC will be allocated
a /19, no questions asked.  The expectation is that they will not need
further allocations for a long time.  But we have wasted a maximum of 8K
addresses.  Once they need another allocation we will know their usage
rate, i.e.  how long it took them to assign the first /19 and hence will
have a much more objective means to determine the size of their next
allocation. 

For clarification: One *big* difference between the ItnerNIC and us is
that we ask a fee for registration services which discourages spurious
requests from individuals and/or very small providers.

Daniel