* nick@inex.ie (Nick Hilliard) [Sun 16 Sep 2012, 21:10 CEST]: [..]
There are a couple of options for dealing with this:
1. specify new time limits (e.g. receive one month in advance, hand back one week after)
I understand that the choice for a /13 to set aside for this was based on the ability to fulfill all temporary IP address space requests. Extending the time period would make this cramped, I presume.
2. don't specify time limits but allow the IPRAs to have discretion on what seems sensible to them
This sounds good on paper but will in practice just lead to requestors going "But you gave them <points at otherconf> a month, why me only a week?!" which is good for neither IPRAs nor applicants. In effect it'll end up being just like a less overt #1.
3. keep the current time limits but ask the RIPE NCC whether it would be possible to implement a booking system. I.e. your assignment would only be active during the requested time period, but you would know well in advance what the options were.
This isn't a good choice either but may be the least-bad of all three. Having the ASN available earlier would help somewhat with ensuring routability as IRRdb's can be updated; having the IP blocks known will help too, even if they're not yet assigned.
If anyone has opinions on which of these they prefer (or any other suggestions on how to deal with the issue), can you either post here or let me know off-list and I'll summarise at RIPE65 in advance of posting a policy amendment for ripe-526 shortly after the meeting?
Lengthening the lease time for temporary ASNs separately from IP number resources should be an option. A hobby gives me a vested interest in #1 so rather foolishly I hope more space can be made available to satisfy community needs, but it would already help to have the ASN and know other numbers earlier. -- Niels. --