Re: Address space for individuals
- Date: Fri, 20 May 94 15:55:08 +0100
On Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:57:15 +0200 Daniel Karrenberg said:
>My proposal would read like:
>
> - very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now
>
The number may be even smaller. I can't remember what the
commonly accepted figure is for the number of staff in a VSE,
but SMEs (small-to-medium enterprised) usually range from 10
to 100 employees. I would say that anything with >16 hosts now
is really an SME, not a VSE.
> - 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?
>
Yes.
>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.
>
RIPE documents are normally recommendations anyway, but derive a
lot of their benefit from being public. I say publish (and be
praised ;-)
>Daniel
Mike
