[address-policy-wg] suggesting medium/big customers to become lirs is a good or a bad idea?

Long time ago, we had a /22. It was assigned from another isps /18. This was when the minimum size for receiving a prefix from ripe was /20. Since the policy has changed, and only because of that, I would recommend:

Ask ripe for a new /22. Give it to the customer. The customer can take it over if they become a LIR later. You can multihome your customer as long as they are multihomed within your network. If you do that, make sure you don't put both their links/routers in the same maintenance window.

j

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tiberiu Ungureanu
Sent: 21. mars 2007 01:51
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] suggesting medium/big customers to become lirs is a good or a bad idea?

hello

in the past week, at the ISP i work for i received 2 requests for /22
each from customers that provide broadband services to end-users. 

i personally feel like this type of customers that have needs for such
big chunks of ip space should be encouraged to become lirs, because

* knowing their type of business it is very likely that they will
request at least another /22 in about 1 year (or even less).
* it is likely that they would want to be multihomed in the future, and
it will be painful for them to renumber (well, if they do their homework
will not be so painful, but it's a job they can avoid doing). anyway, at
that point in time it is likely they will NEED to become lirs.
* lirs pay money to ripe. the more payers, the more likely that the
anual fees will be lower for everyone, or if they stay the same the more
money RIPE-NCC will have to fund projects that will make our life
easier.

anyone else feels the same? should i go ahead and try to talk my
management into talking them into becoming lirs? or do i just need a cup
of coffee and/or more sleep?

/t