last second action completed

This is to complete an action on Mike Norris to re-send
the original message concerning VSEs.

Please refer to the archives for the discussion
that followed.

Daniel

------- Forwarded Message

Date:     Fri, 20 May 1994 09:57:15 +0200
From:     Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>
Sender:   dfk at reif.ripe.net
To:       Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos at surfnet.nl>
cc:       Local IR <local-ir at ripe.net>
Subject:  Re: Address space for individuals 


  > Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos at SURFnet.nl> writes:
  > > This sums up my personal opinion.
  > 
  > Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent
  > approach among all Local IRs.

We will write something up next week. If someone else does before
us we can use that!

My proposal would read like:

	- very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now

	- last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs

		- VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697)
		- VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect
		- VSEs are likely to connect with one host only

	- service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts
          of address space than 8 bits where possible

	- service provider registries will register these smaller amounts
	  in the RIPE database when possible

Rationale:

	Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up
	too much address space.

	

Is this acceptable to all?

Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles 
inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless.

Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just
circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations".
I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations.

Daniel


------- End of Forwarded Message