[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nick Hilliard
nick at inex.ie
Mon Aug 24 23:43:39 CEST 2009
On 20/08/2009 10:17, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote: > How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space > when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a > /24 PI for (the proposed, flat) € 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if > the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-) Wilfried, I'm not proposing that minimum blocks of /24 be handed out like interior extras by a car salesman, but rather that there should be some mechanism where they can be assigned in the specific case where the customer has a demonstrable requirement to multi-home their network, and where becoming a LIR is too heavyweight for their requirements, and/or would waste 7 x /24 from a /21 allocation. There is a significant and clear-cut difference between the two situations here: the one is a grossly irresponsible and cavalier attitude to dealing with addressing requirements; the other is a sensible method of dealing responsibly with a legitimate end-user need. > PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and > still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR Good for you. Have you looked at the problem from the end-user viewpoint? I find it to be rather murkier than the LIR outlook. Nick
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]