[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2006-05 minimum /24 allocation

Count me in guys. I also suggest assigned a minimum /24 PI when required, 
for example, by multi-homing.

Greg

At 14:58 2008.03.11., you wrote:
>michael.dillon at bt.com wrote:
>>Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative
>>host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer
>>that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that
>>routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires
>>such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same
>>time. That seems reasonable.
>>
>AS should not really be in issue, either - we have several customers who 
>at least want to be open for additional uplinks, or switching providers. 
>Therefore, when going through the hassle of renumbering (and due to some 
>programs that are licensed to a certain IP it can really be more than a 
>hassle), they try to avoid another renumbering session in a more or less 
>forseeable future ...
>
>Anyway, I do second the suggestion of assigning a minimum /24 PI given 
>sufficient reasoning behind the request ...
>
>-gg
>