As the original intention was to hand out such space to *registries*, who would then go on to hand out this space to their customers, and eventually come back to get *more* address space, your paragraph simply isn't true (and calling RIPE "irresponsible" is hardly fair).
Point taken. My wording was from a modern implementation of the policy perspective.
(1) Do you agree or disagree that allocating /20s to every requestor who can justify an initial assignment is irresponsible?
I disagree. The RIRs have to balance conservation and aggregation.
/20 is a good compromise. Some addresses might be wasted, but so what.
Routing stability and routing table size is a bigger problem than address wastage, and lowering initial assignments will lead to more fragmentation and thus to larger routing tables.
Please don't put me in the same bucket as those talking about *lowering* the minimum allocation size. This question was simply a preface to (2) below - requiring a indefinite amount of existing address space utilization before qualifying for a RIPE block. Please - the point I was trying to make was the someone who needs a /29 should not be getting a /20 and becoming an LIR simply because they can afford the 2000 Euros.
(2) Do you agree or disagree that RIPE should consider establishing a policy by which an organization can only request a PA allocation if it can demonstrate the efficient utilization of an existing block of IP address space (as yet undefined - /22, /21, /20, etc.)?
Yes. Because this keeps the number of entries in the global table to those that have a sufficient large number of "host-things", and there are fewer of those.
Gert, how much address space should an organization have to demonstrate efficient utilization of before being able to qualify for a PA /20 in your opinion?
(4) Should organizations which are using a relatively small amount of address space be required to renumber in order to recieve a PA allocation from RIPE?
Yes. If they have a larger space, they should move their stuff into the new /20 (or whatever), and stop announcing the old network.
You're making the assumption they're announcing the route(s) separately from their upstream's aggregate. I don't want to make such assumptions. If the group feels that we should make distinctions between multi-homed requestors and single-homed requestors, that's a discussion we need to have. I feel that in the case of an organization assigned upstream space from one provider, renumbering shouldn't be forced on them. (a) it doesnt help the routing tables in this case; (b) it's a huge burden on the NCC wait queue, in my estimation. (NCC? Comments?) /david