Re: Address space for individuals
- Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 14:10:56 +0200 (MET DST)
I beg to differ with most of the opinions voiced up to now. I have
big problems with Ripe rushing off and changing the rules yet another
time with -no- convincing arguments and analysis that any significant
problem will be solved by this change of policy.
Before I would agree to a formal "sub-class C" allocation policy,
I would like to see:
- a study on how much address space will be actually saved
by this change. Taking into account:
- current available services from ISP's. For example
a large number of ISP's already have "single address"
dialup IP services where address are allocated out
of ISP network numbers.
- granularity of allocation.
- loss of efficency due to the fact that most ISP's
do not use CIDR capable routing protocols internally.
- projected demand for address space for less than
32 hosts. This will require statistical information
on company size etc. (I don't think the odd hobbyist
with more than one machine is of such great concern.)
- disussion of alternatives (new classes of Internet numbers
etc.) and why they do not solve the problem.
- a discussion on the operational pro's and con's on such an
allocation policy, including administration.
- a "rough consenus" between all parties that this is a good idea,
this would at least include the IETF and commercial representatives
of all major ISP's. As pointed out in the minutes of the local-ir
meeting, there are already substantial differences in allocation
policy between the European IR's and others, we cannot afford
to embark on yet another Europe-only crusade.
Simon
