[anti-abuse-wg] Allocation of number resources
Ronald F. Guilmette rfg at tristatelogic.com
Thu Feb 7 00:42:39 CET 2013
In message <0C2184CC-2791-48C2-894C-C13E620BFE73 at ripe.net>, Alex Le Heux <alexlh at ripe.net> wrote: >The RIPE Community's policies generally do not contain highly specific >requirements such as minimum amounts of hardware and direct the RIPE NCC >to allocate address space to LIRs at the rate that the addresses are >assigned and/or sub-allocated to end-users by that LIR. > >In early 2011 a new LIR would receive as a first allocation the minimum >allocation size, a /21, unless the LIR could demonstrate a need for a >larger block. Such a need could be demonstrated in various ways, with >proof of purchase of the right amount of hardware to deploy these >addresses on being an obvious and often used one. Other ways to >demonstrate a need include operating licenses granted by governments, >contracts with providers, customers and/or partners and detailed >deployment plans. > >Subsequent allocations are evaluated in a large part on the usage rate >of previous allocations. Should an LIR have requested a much larger size >additional allocation than their previous usage rate would indicate, >additional documentation of their need would be requested. I appreciate you taking the time to write the above answer, however I'm afraid that it has left me a bit confused. On the one hand, you say that "RIPE Community's policies generally do not contain highly specific requirements" with respect to justifying allocations, but then you go on to describe various ways that an LIR might actually justify it's alleged need. >An allocation to an LIR is a block that is reserved for future use of >that LIR, its size based on past usage rate and/or specified future >plans. Most LIR's businesses, however, are dynamic: Customers come and >go, projects change, get cancelled and new projects get started. The >RIPE policies take this into account and there is no requirement to keep >some arbitrary minimum amount of hardware infrastructure. So let me see if I understand this. If a given LIR had a spare /17 lying around... which they may have, e.g. because they were allocated that /17 by RIPE NCC for a project or customer than never actually materalized... then there is no RIPE community policy which would in any way prevent that LIR from sub-assigning that entire /17 to some customer who had exactly and only one router and one server. Is that correct? >There are no 'maintenance' requirements as such in the RIPE NCC service >region and these can therefore not be grounds for de-registering an >allocation to an LIR. So in the scenario described above, if in fact the LIR assigned an entire /17 to a single customer, where that customer only had a grand total of one router and one server, there would be nothing whatsoever that RIPE NCC could or would do, in reaction, in order to prevent or reverse this kind of colossal waste of that large chunk of the rapidly depleating resource known as the IPv4 address space. Is that correct? Regards, rfg P.S. Sorry. One more question... I don't know how RIPE operates, but ARIN make every effort to do things entiirely and only "by the book", so to speak, where "the book" is ARIN's own published and publically available policy manual. I'd just like to know if RIPE has an equivalent sort of published Policy Manual, and if so, where I might find it. Thanks.