On Fri, May 10, 2002 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Dave Wilson wrote:
- and again: there have been enough NREN representatives at the RIPE meeting, and I can't remember hearing loud arguments from them against the new policy. There have been questions, and concerns, but most of them have been convinced that the new policy is an improvement, [snip]
For the record, I raised a point at the lir-wg, on behalf of HEAnet and something that has met with agreement from other NREN personnel. The requirement for 200 sites, regardless of density to the right of the /48 boundary, is very onerous.
However from other discussions it appears that the consequences of rejecting the policy would have been truly dire for some in the APNIC region, so no one wanted to derail the process just for this; instead I think it was recorded as approved, with the acknowledgement that further work needs to be done.
Yes, this is a good summary. The new policy was adopted, and it was noted that there could be some deficiencies for for example NRENs, large multinational companies or mixed companies that are both in the business of being an ISP and some other line of business. However, it was also mentioned during the meeting, and now again on this mailing list, that the requirements might not be so difficult at all for such organizations. It is probably useful for the earlier mentioned organizations to read the actual policy document, decide whether they actually should go to an upstream or that there is indeed a way for them to qualify and only as the *last* option to raise an issue on the list (that is the lir-wg list, not this list) *after* their application has been rejected and no way out, while working with the RIPE NCC, was found. It's simply a bit premature to say that something doesn't work for your organization if people obviously have not read the policy document, before your organization has applied for address space and before trying to work with the RIPE NCC to work out any issues with the application. David K. ---