On Oct 2, 2013, at 3:49 AM, Sanjaya Sanjaya <sanjaya at apnic dot net> wrote: > 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. Historically, the then RIRs argued that folks should demonstrate external connectivity or at least concrete evidence that connectivity was about to be obtained before getting allocations. Lots of folks disagreed. The end result of that argument was RFC 1814 (that is, the RIRs lost). Obviously, policies have evolved, however the application of the concept of "operational need" is and always has been extremely slippery. AFAICT, it basically boils down to "I need it because I say I need it" and trust in the community that they aren't lying (at least too much). Since the scenario Dean offered was a "last /8" application, whatever existing policies APNIC has for demonstrating operational need should be applied. If the requestor can demonstrate that the leasee has an operational need for the address space, I suspect that'll meets the allocation threshold. If the requester is just trying to score their /22 before they all run out and doesn't have a leasee already knocking on the door with deployment plans, then the threshold probably isn't met. > 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. I'd say registration takes precedence period. In my view, the RIRs may have a role in the market transfer world in providing a venue in which useful conventions to help ensure the Internet doesn't suffer routing system collapse, e.g., "transfers of prefixes longer than /<x> in IPv4 and /<y> in IPv6 are discouraged" can be established, but accurate registration is absolutely critical. Registries are _registries_ after all... Regards, -drc
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail