<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Allocations for "always-on" ISPs

  • To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist < >
    "Neil J. McRae" < >
  • From: Simon Skals < >
  • Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 12:29:22 +0100
  • Cc: Bruno Ciscato < >
It seems Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
>That ofcourse depends on what services you want to offer your
>customers.....
>
>I don't see why you want to break services in order to solve assignment
>policies? This said, I do realise that there is a assignment policy aspect
>to this as well.

You might realise that you will end up breaking promises to customers if the offered services collide with acceptable assignment policies.

While it is - at first - easy for an ISP to hand out /29's to home users, I really hope that the RIPE NCC will make an effort to prevent service providers from offering this as an off-the-shelf product for Mr. and Mrs. Always-On.

We are going to run out of IPv4 space very quickly if the assignment of, for instance, /29's to home users becomes standard procedure at ISP's - and bruno's mail does indicate that this is already happening:

"[...]several new ISP in Europe are starting to offer "always on" Internet access.

The allocation strategies vary, if they give a subnet to each household this is usually a /29 [...]"

Has the RIPE NCC seen any signs of this actually being a trend? If so, is it seen as an acceptable assignment policy?

Being an IP bloke with a conscience, I would personally hate to provide our regular home users with /29's. However, should our competitors start doing this, we would of course have to respond. It would be a shame, however, if the commercial struggles should end up leading to a swift exhaustion of IPv4 space.

Cheers
/Simon





  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>