lowering maximum assignment window

 Stephen Burley <stephenb at uk.uu.net> writes:
 * Can I make a suggestion: 
 * 
 * We leave the maximum as a /19 and for a period of time lower the registries
 * assignment window to a reasonable level i.e. a /22 or /23 which will give ea
 * ch
 * registry the time to prove their procedures and expose them to RIPE policies
 * again. This could be done on a rotational basis so each registry could prove
 *  to
 * RIPE that they have good working practice. Once RIPE was happy with the
 * registry they would raise the assignment window to the original size. This
 * could be done on a 2 year basis. So within a 2 year period RIPE would be hap
 * py
 * that any given registry is applying RIPE policy and DB correctly. Of course
 * this would not need to be done to registries who RIPE are already in regular
 * contact with.

I think the above comments defeat the purpose of the suggestion to cap the 
size of a maximum assignment window to, say a /21. I cannot imagine the 
increase in workload on registries like yourself who have a /19 aw to be all 
that great. Customers requesting a /20 and /19 worth of address space must be 
in a minority and besides a turnaround time of three days for such requests is 
pretty reasonable. Your comments about monitoring registries on a two year 
basis would, I feel, seriously increase the burden on us here at RIPE NCC. I 
think you should also bear in mind that the suggestion to lower the maximum aw 
is also an attempt to make the playing field more even so to say.

Paul Tate
Hostmaster
RIPE NCC