Re: Address space for individuals
- Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 12:37:25 +0300
Geert Jan de Groot writes:
>
> Playing around with this leads to a few more interesting ideas. These
> are personal; butcher them down if you don't like them:
> - Maybe we should make a point that people who want address space
> 'so they can connect later' to ask them to make a choice of ISP
> first and only THEN get address space (from the provider registry,
> that is). If they have a small network, say up to 100 hosts or so,
> having them use private address space and renumber once they connect
> should not be so bad.
Agree fully but I think this should be announced from some more authorative
entity than a local-ir. RIPE will do fine. At least if there is a way to
prevent situation where the customer does not go to some ISP other than
the one handling the last-resort-ir and gets an address there and later
when he's about to connect, feels that he got bad service from the ISP/last-
resort-registry and goes to the ISP he got the addresses from.
The point is that the above works if RIPE enforces this policy on ISP
registries and last-resort-registries. (on all you give address space)
> - This would point more work to ISP-registries instead of the L-R registry.
> This brings down the work on the L-R registries (who do this for free,
> after all), and brings these costs to ISP registries (who might see this
> as 'customer service' and thus have justification why their IR-activities
> cost effort and money)
> - It makes CIDR work better!
>
Agree with these two too. When we get a 'RIPE recommendation' that we can
hand out to the applicants that apply for address space but are not planning
to connect in immediate future ?
Pete
