That the affirmation that no RIR has ever refused an IPv4 chunk is wrong, and that its documented here while when it was made no one objected.
You see, a user only cares about what he realy gets. A partner of mine was unable to get an IPv4 address in 2 years. Same for chunks. I do not think there is any other need to document why there are NATs and no IPv6. NAT is seen as an alternative to IPv6. While IPv6 should be an alternative to IPv4. In blocking IPv4 XIRs block IPv6. Basic marketing.
We do not know why M. Dupont's request was denied by RENATER, nor is the latter an RIR. LIRs may have their own policies which do not match those of their corresponding RIR, and applicants are free to pick another LIR (or become their own) if necessary.
There have been no clearly documented cases, AFAIK, where an RIR has denied a request that met with their policy requirements. One may argue that the policies have unreasonable requirements, but those policies were approved by open process involving the community they serve and (for IPv4) based on the global consensus supporting RFC 2050.
S
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf