Needs based has never been about actually deploying things (I think thats worth clarifying with APNIC, which I'll do).
Asked and Answered: Dean wrote:
As an example. If a new APNIC member were to apply for their /22 from 103/8 and the justification was "I need 1024 addresses which I intend to lease on a per monthly basis to other users", would that be sufficient justification under current policy?
Hi Dean, We have neither received nor approved a case like this. In evaluating the service and network plan, we look for evidence that the address space will be routed in an aggregated manner. Sub-delegations to customers should come with connectivity/transit services. Having said this, I did observe in the policy SIG discussion in Xi'an that some organisations have actually sub-delegated their space to customers without any connectivity/transit service. This is a practice that is not consistent with the aggregation principle in address space management, but a reality in address transfer market. It seems to me that in the IPv4 near-exhaustion state that we are currently in, where market transfer is a reality, registration takes precedence over aggregation. Happy to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Cheers, Sanjaya