Re: [sig-policy] Leasing and needs based allocation
We have neither received nor approved a case like this. In evaluating the service and network plan, we look for evidence that the address space will be routed in an aggregated manner. Sub-delegations to customers should come with connectivity/transit services.
Having said this, I did observe in the policy SIG discussion in Xi'an that some organisations have actually sub-delegated their space to customers without any connectivity/transit service. This is a practice that is not consistent with the aggregation principle in address space management, but a reality in address transfer market.
It seems to me that in the IPv4 near-exhaustion state that we are currently in, where market transfer is a reality, registration takes precedence over aggregation.
Happy to hear everyone's thoughts about this.
Cheers,
Sanjaya
Dean wrote:
> As an example. If a new APNIC member were to apply for their /22 from
> 103/8 and the justification was "I need 1024 addresses which I intend to
> lease on a per monthly basis to other users", would that be sufficient
> justification under current policy?
>
>
> Thanks
> Regards,
> Dean