This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
James Blessing
james.blessing at despres.co.uk
Thu Oct 21 14:23:51 CEST 2010
On 21 October 2010 13:10, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:48:58PM +0100, James Blessing wrote: >> On 21 October 2010 12:36, Emilio Madaio <emadaio at ripe.net> wrote: >> >> > http://ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html >> >> Either I'm going mental or doesn't the line: >> >> "Cumulatively, no more than 248 additional IPv4 addresses may be >> assigned to any particular End User for the purposes outlined in >> section 6.10." >> >> make the proposal completely pointless > > It's a "stop the floodgates" clause to try to prevent abuse of this > proposal. > > For the intended purpose ("give people a /24 that do not have the > necessary amount of machines and do not want to lie to the NCC") it > should not pose a problem - you have 3 machines plus a router, you > need 4 addresses = /29. Add 248 addresses, reach /24. > > The emphasis is "additional" = "in addition to the addresses the > requester can justify". > > The stopgap function is: if the same entity comes back three months > later and asks for another /29-to-be-extended-to-a-/24, they won't > get it. "Fill your existing /24 first." > > If that's not sufficiently clear, we might need to reword. Okay no I understand the intent better... How about the following situation: I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement for 253 more addresses to make it up... (I admit its unlikely but a potential situation that needs to be resolved) There is also a potential issue where you have a requirement to subnet multiple locations where you are using a number less than the full number of addresses (eg 33 sites with /29 but only 5 address being used at each site to round up to a /23 you need more that 248 addresses...) "Further assignments under section 6.10 will not be permitted for an End User until all existing assignments have reached 80% utilisation" J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]