[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet
Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at
Thu Aug 20 11:17:39 CEST 2009
Marshall Eubanks wrote: > > On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote: > >> >> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: >> >>> >>> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: [...] >>> ... - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the >>> minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are >>> not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced >>> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller >>> range.[...] Why would anyone opt for the possibility to get *less* address space? Essentially, in my personal opinion, supporting this proposal is like suggesting to go back to the classful, pre-CIDR times through the backdoor. How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a /24 PI for (the proposed, flat) € 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-) Wilfried. PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR ;-)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]