Re: [address-policy-wg] new policy idea for PA allocations

[David Conrad drc@localhost]

Remco,

On Aug 7, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Remco van Mook wrote:
> I'm not sure how big the extra overhead will be - my estimate is not a
> lot - but putting it that way, that is indeed what I'm suggesting.
If the overhead is not a lot (something I suspect the request  
evaluation staff at RIPE-NCC might disagree with), it isn't clear to  
me how this would significantly impact address distribution.
> Allocating all the fragments to a single request or small number of
> requests is in my opinion the worst possible thing we could do with  
> it.
But wouldn't this be the outcome with your proposal as written since  
the folks most likely to consume the most address space are the ones  
with the resources to throw at writing a zillion applications?  Or are  
you assuming there would be a significant increase in the number of  
requests submitted essentially simultaneously such that distribution  
of the fragments would be distributed more evenly over a number of  
requesters?
> Alternatively we could take the 'one size fits all' approach as has  
> been
> proposed in the APNIC region as referred to by Randy.
Or you could put a wait time between requests, e.g., a new request  
from the same organization will only be reviewed (say) 30 days after  
the last request.  If nothing else, this could increase RIPE-NCC's  
membership fee revenues (1/2 :-)).
Regards,
-drc