Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> writes: Then why have they not yet come up with a workable policy like the one RIPE uses to release /16 blocks incrementally to new ISP's?
The RIPE NCC is not doing that. What we are doing is quite similar to what the InterNIC does with one very notable exception: We charge ISPs for registration service and we audit their assignments so they have to have their act together. This means there are significant resources involved in obtaining address space from us rather than their transit provider. This causes ISPs to make much more rational decisions about where to obtain their address space. It also makes the rate with which new local registries are established quite predictable which allows for some level of rationalisation in allocation decisions. Unfortunately the InterNIC is in no position to put ISPs before that choice. THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED! Details: We allocate a fixed size first allocation (currently /19s) to each and every newly established local registry (ISP) *no matter what their glorious plans are*. Further allocations are made *exlusivcely* based on past usage rates which is reasonably rational. Remember that we audit assignments. We will do our best to place subsequent allocations such that they can be aggregated with previous ones. We are reasonably successful at this and that is probably why the misunderstanding above is quite common. Formally however we make no guarantee whatsoever about the placement of allocations. This gives us the possibility to react flexibly and do the right thing most of the time. Again, this is essentially the same policy as the InterNIC uses with a few local variations. The main difference is that ISPs have to expend resources to get service. Daniel