1. Do you agree on the following criteria to be set:
The requesting organisation need to show - Demonstrated efficient utilisation of a /xx or - Immediate need for a /xx ?
I agree!
2. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated efficient utilisation of address space, should the requestor need to demonstrate efficient utilisation of A. /22 or B. /21 ?
A /21 is a more responsible size, in my opinion. An organization that needs a /22 is less assured of ever using the full /20, much less using it in a reasonable time period.
3. If qualifying through the criterion of demonstrated immediate need, should the requestor need to demonstrate an immediate need of a A. /22 or B. /21?
Definitely a /21.
4. Should the requesting organisation be required to renumber depending on the sizes of its current aggregates?
No! Bad idea! I reiterate that I believe the RIRs have made a mistake in forcing organizations to renumber upstream space as part of the address request process. Such renumbering happens normally as the relationships between a downstream and an upstream evolve (or devolve, as it were). The administrative overhead required on RIPE's part to enforce a renumbering provision *are not acceptable* to Global Crossing at this time. RIPE has other priorities which take precedence. /david *--------------------------------* | Global Crossing IP Engineering | | Manager, Global IP Addressing | | TEL: (908) 720-6182 | | FAX: (703) 464-0802 | *--------------------------------*