Summary: PA Allocation criteria discussion

> 1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set:
> 
>     The requesting organisation need to show
>      - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx
>     or
>      - Immediate need for a /xx ?

I agree!
 
> 2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient
>    utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to 
>    demonstrate efficient utilisation of
>     A. /22 
>     or
>     B. /21 ?

A /21 is a more responsible size, in my opinion. An organization
that needs a /22 is less assured of ever using the full /20, much
less using it in a reasonable time period.
 
> 3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate 
>    need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate 
>    need of a
>     A. /22
>     or
>     B. /21?

Definitely a /21.
 
> 4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber
>    depending on the sizes of its current aggregates?

No! Bad idea! I reiterate that I believe the RIRs have made a mistake in
forcing organizations to renumber upstream space as part of the address
request process. Such renumbering happens normally as the relationships
between a downstream and an upstream evolve (or devolve, as it were).

The administrative overhead required on RIPE's part to enforce a
renumbering provision *are not acceptable* to Global Crossing at this
time. RIPE has other priorities which take precedence.

/david

*--------------------------------*
| Global Crossing IP Engineering |
| Manager, Global IP Addressing  |
|   TEL: (908) 720-6182          |
|   FAX: (703) 464-0802          |
*--------------------------------*