[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

> 
> On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[...]
>>> ... - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be  the
>>> minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks  are
>>> not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced 
>>> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller 
>>> range.[...]

Why would anyone opt for the possibility to get *less* address space?

Essentially, in my personal opinion, supporting this proposal is like
suggesting to go back to the classful, pre-CIDR times through the backdoor.

How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space
when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a
/24 PI for (the proposed, flat) € 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if
the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-)

Wilfried.

PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and
    still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR ;-)