RE: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
- Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 10:25:06 +0100
> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra: Hans Petter Holen [SMTP:hph@localhost]
> Sendt: 8. februar 2001 23:15
> Til: lir-wg@localhost
> Emne: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
>
>
>
> > why is dsl different, from an address allocation view, than e1, flame
> delay,
> > point2point, etc. it's just the layer 1 point-to-point technology used
> for
> > provisioning an end site.
>
> In my oppinion it is not at should not be different. But what is different
> is that we
> are rolling out mass marked "always on" products in a larger scale than we
> have
> seen before.
[Bjarne Carlsen] But what is different about it? It is - as Randy said -
just the layer 1 point-to-point technology used for
provisioning an end site (blatant cut'n paste here). The only real
difference from "the good old days" that I can see, is that we are dealing
with customers as single persons/families with lesser need for address space
instead of companies with comparatively greater needs.
> What I don't think the poicies should do is to prevent products like home
> lans.
> I dont think policies should force providers or the customers to use NAT.
[Bjarne Carlsen] I agree, but I still think that the customers
should be required by policy to somehow justify their needs for addresses.
> So going back to the original question, is it OK to assign a /29 to a home
> network
> (beeing connected with wathever technology) ?
[Bjarne Carlsen] That was not the original question. The question
was whether a standard /29 assignment to all
DSL/cable/insert-your-own-new-technology users would be feasible.
>
> I belive the answer is yes.
[Bjarne Carlsen] I heartily disagree: With a standard assignment,
there is absolutely no justification for the used space. The proposed policy
does not even assume that all addresses will actually be used - not even
that they will be used eventually.
> I also belive that it is probably not
> reasonalble to
> expect an average customer to fill in the RIPE form. I also have a
> tendency
> to think
> that it is probably not usefull to demand the form to be filled out for a
> /29...
[Bjarne Carlsen] Right, but the administration will have to be done
at some point - whether it is done via a RIPE-141 or it is done some other
way. The administrator should be the LIR in my opinion.
> So my opinion would be that:
> - the policy should not encourage an ISP to make /29 the default product
> - the policy should not prevent an ISP from making a product option to
> have
> more than one IP address in a home network. (enabeled by clicking on a web
> page
> or some such.)
[Bjarne Carlsen] And in my opinion the policy should not even
_allow_ a /29 as default product - no tickee, no launly; no justification,
no addresses.
> - I think it would be a huge vaste of resources if RIPE NCC hostmasters
> were
> to spend their time reviewing RIPE forms for /29 for dsl, 3G or whatever
> connected home¨ networks...
[Bjarne Carlsen] Yes, but the administration will still have to be
done somewhere in the system...
> On the even more general side, I think more and more that we should be
> realy
> carefull to
> create to strong restrictions on the use of address space available to new
> and smaller players
> today, while there are no such policies in place for legacy address space.
>
[Bjarne Carlsen] Couldn't have said that better myself.
> -hph
>
/Bjarne
