[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation

michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
> Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative
> host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer
> that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that
> routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires
> such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same
> time. That seems reasonable.
>   
AS should not really be in issue, either - we have several customers who 
at least want to be open for additional uplinks, or switching providers. 
Therefore, when going through the hassle of renumbering (and due to some 
programs that are licensed to a certain IP it can really be more than a 
hassle), they try to avoid another renumbering session in a more or less 
forseeable future ...

Anyway, I do second the suggestion of assigning a minimum /24 PI given 
sufficient reasoning behind the request ...

-gg