[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Greg L.
bgp2 at linuxadmin.org
Tue Mar 11 13:04:12 CET 2008
Count me in guys. I also suggest assigned a minimum /24 PI when required, for example, by multi-homing. Greg At 14:58 2008.03.11., you wrote: >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 >
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]