Re: Address space for individuals

• To:
• From: Dave Morton < >
• Date: Fri, 20 May 94 13:48:39 +0200
• Cc:

>  > 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?

YEP.

>
>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.

Publish.

>Daniel

Dave

• Post To The List: