RIPE policy on static addresses

Quoting from Rushdul.Mannan's message:
> 
> 
>  Antonio_Blasco Bonito <bonito at nis.garr.it> writes:
> 
> 
> > Dear Local-IR's,
> > 
> > this is the text about the use of dialup static addressing in
> > ripe-104++, which is supposed to become a ripe document at the next
> > meeting in Berlin.  We, acting as a delegated local registry for
> > several providers, have some coordination problem with them on the base
> > of an official document which remains almost generic.
> > 
> >              8. Static Dialup. Due to constraints on the available
> >                 free pool of IPv4 address space, the use of static
> >                 IP address assignments (e.g., one address per cus-
> >                 tomer) for dial-up users is strongly discouraged.
> >                 While it is understood that the use of static
> >                 addressing may ease some aspects of administration,
> >                 the current rate of consumption of the remaining
> >                 unassigned IPv4 address space does not permit the
> >                 assignment of addresses for administrative ease.
> >                 Organizations considering the use of static IP
> >                 address assignment are expected to investigate and
> >                 implement dynamic assignment technologies whenever
> >                 possible.  If allocations for this purpose are
> >                 indeed made, special allocation and verificatin pro-
> >                 cedures apply.  Please contact the RIPE NCC for
> >                 details.
> > 
> > Since the guidelines given upon request by RIPE NCC staff (see below)
> > are precise in tieing the use of dialup static addresses to the
> > availability (public or reserved) of customer data, I suggest that a
> > careful but clear sentence stating this need is included in the
> > ripe-104++ text.
> > 
> 
> The issue of IPv4 address space becomming increasingly scarce IMHO
> should now be crossing the boundaries of 'strong recommendations'
> and 'hard rules'. 
> 
> I have gone to considerable lengths explaining the whole concept
> of static and dynamic addressing to customers who are in the process
> of setting up as a dial-up ISPs, but the fact remains that at the end 
> of the day they are still 'recommendations'. Also AFAIK dial-up ISPs
> impliment static addressing not just for administrative ease (at their
> end) but due to their customer preference. What I'm trying to say is 
> that if you give someone a choice they would consider the one which
> keeps their customers happy.

I think you missed my point. Given the situation you correctly describe,
RIPE-NCC is trying to apply strict rules to Local Registries asking
address space for static dialup. My point is that those rules are not
clearly written in an official ripe document. That's all what I say.

> 
> > 
> > Quoting from RIPE NCC Hostmaster's message:
> > > ... here is the latest version of what we
> > > send to companies using STATIC address assignments for dial-up.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Because the amounts of assigned address space will be based on 'number
> > > of customers' rather than network infrastructure there are special
> > > verification requirements.  In general there will be three alternative
> > > methods:
> > > 
> > > 1) Registration of assignments in the registry database
> > > 
> > > or
> > > 
> > > 2) Submission of customer data to RIR in confidence
> > > 
> > > or
> > > 
> > > 3) Periodic submission of the number of addresses assigned.
> > > The LIR has to formally agree to on-site inspection by the RIR or its
> > > agents of customer data on demand.  Reasonable costs for the
> > > inspections are to be bourne by the LIR concerned.  Additionally the
> > > LIR will formally agree to make available to the RIR the assignment
> > > data of a reasonable and randomly drawn sample of the addresses assigned.
> > > Sampled data must be made available immediately on first demand.
> > > 
> > > The RIPE NCC prefers METHOD 1 and will use method 2 and 3 only if
> > > really necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> Local IRs already (should if some don't) follow RIPE guidelines when
> assigning address space, they need not be further subjected to the above.
> Its the end user, with demands, who needs to be educated. 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> R Mannan
> Xara Networks Ltd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > ----------                                                     ----------
> > Antonio-Blasco Bonito                          E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it
> > GARR - Network Information Service      c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito
> > c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR                           Tel: +39 50 593246
> > Via S. Maria, 36                                       Fax: +39 50 904052
> > I-56126 PISA                                        Telex: 500371 CNUCE I
> > Italy                   Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html
> > ----------                                                     ----------
> 
> 
> 


-- 
----------                                                     ----------
Antonio-Blasco Bonito                          E-Mail: bonito at nis.garr.it
GARR - Network Information Service      c=it;a=garr;p=garr;o=nis;s=bonito
c/o CNUCE - Istituto del CNR                           Tel: +39 50 593246
Via S. Maria, 36                                       Fax: +39 50 904052
I-56126 PISA                                        Telex: 500371 CNUCE I
Italy                   Url: http://www.nis.garr.it/nis/staff/bonito.html
----------                                                     ----------