[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 ]