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

On 20/08/2009 10:17, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
> 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,

I'm not proposing that minimum blocks of /24 be handed out like interior 
extras by a car salesman, but rather that there should be some mechanism 
where they can be assigned in the specific case where the customer has a 
demonstrable requirement to multi-home their network, and where becoming a 
LIR is too heavyweight for their requirements, and/or would waste 7 x /24 
from a /21 allocation.

There is a significant and clear-cut difference between the two situations 
here:  the one is a grossly irresponsible and cavalier attitude to dealing 
with addressing requirements; the other is a sensible method of dealing 
responsibly with a legitimate end-user need.

> 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

Good for you.  Have you looked at the problem from the end-user viewpoint? 
  I find it to be rather murkier than the LIR outlook.

Nick