Re: Address space for individuals
- Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:57:15 +0200
> Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos@localhost writes:
> > This sums up my personal opinion.
>
> Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent
> approach among all Local IRs.
We will write something up next week. If someone else does before
us we can use that!
My proposal would read like:
- very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now
- last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs
- VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697)
- VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect
- VSEs are likely to connect with one host only
- service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts
of address space than 8 bits where possible
- service provider registries will register these smaller amounts
in the RIPE database when possible
Rationale:
Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up
too much address space.
Is this acceptable to all?
Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles
inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless.
Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just
circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations".
I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations.
Daniel
