Hi, On 6 Dec 2005, at 11:55, Tim Chown wrote: [...]
Basically, ~2% of requests did not end in address space being registered. We don't know how many requests are not sent in.
Thanks Leo, very interesting.
We noted one knockon effect of RIPE policy. I don't know the full details, but essentially for a tunnel broker service we wanted to offer a /48 to end sites out of an existing /32, but were unable to do so because the 'paperwork' to be sent on to RIPE-NCC for each /48 was needed in advance for the ISP owning the /32 to allocate a (say) /40 to the broker service, and that added a notable hurdle. So we ended up using a /48 for the broker and allocating /56 and /64 blocks. Is this the way it's meant to be, or should the ISP owning the /32 only need to report usage when asking for more space itself?
I think someone else mentioned that a sub-allocation would have worked quite nicely in a case like this. It's worth noting that the current policy does not require an LIR to get approval before making a sub-allocation of any size. Regards, -- leo vegoda Registration Services Manager RIPE NCC