[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Fil
koalafil at gmail.com
Fri Sep 20 23:23:47 CEST 2013
Hello Tore, On 20 Sep 2013, at 22:42, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote: > Hi again Filiz, > >> So the proposal is to remove some heavy "bureaucracy" (because if it >> was not heavy, we would not need a change, right?) which at the same >> time is (according to the 2nd paragraph) as easy as basically >> "keeping a straight face while justifying the assignment of 1 single >> IP"? > > You are comparing apples to oranges here (allocations to assignments). I do not think I am doing that. I just took your own exact words and put them in a form of a question. But lets move on to the topic and to the point, even if you think I am doing that. > The "easy" part is to document "need" enough to get an *allocation* from > the NCC. "Need" for allocations comes from one thing only: Intent to > make assignments. If you can document an intent to make a valid > assignment for one (1) IPv4 address, you have a valid need for an > allocation. Following the implementation of the last /8 policy, there is > only one size allocation the NCC can delegate to its members (/22). > Thus, by submitting a ripe-583 form documenting an intended assignment > of 1 IPv4 address (or a /32 if you prefer), you have also automatically > qualified for your initial and final /22 allocation. Anyone can do that, > it is not heavy bureaucracy at all. Good, then there is no need to change this in the policy for allocations. And to better address the need based concerns objecting your proposal, I think you could consider taking the "intent" you mentioned above one step further and have it explained to the RIPE NCC. Accordingly, I think following will be a more appropriate wording: 3. LIR must demonstrate its need for the IPv4 address space and must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation. replacing what you proposed: 3. The LIR must confirm it will make assignment(s) from the allocation > > As described above, this is not being removed. Since an assignment must > be sized at least 1 address (or larger), a check-box requiring the > requesting LIR to confirm assignments will be made from the allocation > is functionally identical to today's current practise. Confirming to make assignments on its own is not enough in my belief. But I would support a more explicit need-justification requirement as above. Filiz -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20130920/bc55cc64/attachment.html>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2013-03 New Draft Document and Impact Analysis Published (No Need - Post-Depletion Reality Adjustment and Cleanup)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]