DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dmitry Kiselev
dmitry at volia.net
Wed Jul 22 10:48:56 CEST 2009
Hello! On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:28:14AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:19:26AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > > So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any > > comments before I formally submit it? > > Do we *really* need this? Yes, we need this. I support this proposition. > The network that started this topic ("we have 10 locations that need a > /24 each") is not your typical *LIR* in the first place, and might really > be better suited with PI /24s - as that's what they are doing: connecting > "independent locations" to the Internet. They are not doing LIR business. > > A *LIR* needs a reasonable amount of address space, so I really fail to > see why someone would want a /24 PA instead of a /24 PI... (which costs > less, and has the same impact on the routing table). PI does not allow end user assignments in it. In my opinion it is good reason for allow /24 allocations. > Operationally, the "/24 PA" would come from the same blocks as /24 PI > anyway (minimum allocation size, etc.)... > > > If you're convinced that this really is a good thing, by all means go > ahead (and I won't oppose), I'm just afraid that this is a waste of > "policy making brain power", solving a not really existing problem... -- Dmitry Kiselev
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Next message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]