RE: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 12:48:32 +0100 (MET)
I agree with Bjarne. The proposed /29 assignment is wasteful. DSL
customers should be dealt with as all the other.
One official dynamically assigned /32 (no NAT here) pr. customer should do
it for the majority of the "non business" customers. And if some of them
needs to be assigned official addresses they must fill in "the form".
And if some providers market DSL products which include 8, 16, 32 or more
IP addresses, this is OK as long as these customers document their needs.
I also think the RIR's should take notice of this practice and perhaps
focus their audits on these providers.
--
Regards,
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl
Nextra AS
On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
> My $0,02:
>
> As I stated on the RIPE-meeting, one should consider the goal of
> preservation most carefully when contemplating any standard assignments for
> specific services. The proposed /29 assignment seems to me, (and I work for
> a cable provider), to be wasteful.
>
> I vote for the second option. Let the LIR ask for current and expected use.
>
> Rgds
> Bjarne Carlsen
> Fakse Municipality
>
>
