Criteria for initial PA Allocation

 
> As the original intention was to hand out such space to *registries*,
> who would then go on to hand out this space to their customers, and
> eventually come back to get *more* address space, your paragraph simply
> isn't true (and calling RIPE "irresponsible" is hardly fair).

Point taken. My wording was from a modern implementation of the policy
perspective.
 
> > (1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who
> > can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
> 
> I disagree.  The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation.
> 
> /20 is a good compromise.  Some addresses might be wasted, but so what.
> 
> Routing stability and routing table size is a bigger problem than address 
> wastage, and lowering initial assignments will lead to more fragmentation
> and thus to larger routing tables.

Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering*
the minimum allocation size.

This question was simply a preface to (2) below - requiring a indefinite
amount of existing address space utilization before qualifying for a RIPE
block. 

Please - the point I was trying to make was the someone who needs a /29
should not be getting a /20 and becoming an LIR	simply because they can
afford the 2000 Euros.

> > (2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a
> > policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can
> > demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address
> > space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?
> 
> Yes.  Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to
> those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there
> are fewer of those.

Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate
efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your
opinion?
 
> > (4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of
> > address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation
> > from RIPE?
> 
> Yes.  If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into
> the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network.

You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately
from their upstream's aggregate. 

I don't want to make such assumptions. 

If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed
requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to
have. 

I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from
one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help
the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait
queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?)

/david