This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] Re: DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations
- Previous message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
- Next message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jeroen Wunnink
jeroen at easyhosting.nl
Wed Jul 22 10:44:07 CEST 2009
I beleive the discussion that also started this was due to RIPE being very strict and overly complicated (in my opinion) about PI assignments. (even the first /24+AS) RIPE suggests a lot of: 'Customer should become LIR himself', even if he doesn't need the /21 in the forseeable future. I think your definition of a LIR is something else then RIPE defines it as. Nevertheless, I do agree with your definition of a LIR and I'd rather see the PI assignments being handled in < /21 allocations, and most definately in another (easier, less time consuming) way when a LIR requests one on behalf of a customer. Gert Doering wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:19:26AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote: > >> So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any >> comments before I formally submit it? >> > > Do we *really* need this? > > The network that started this topic ("we have 10 locations that need a > /24 each") is not your typical *LIR* in the first place, and might really > be better suited with PI /24s - as that's what they are doing: connecting > "independent locations" to the Internet. They are not doing LIR business. > > A *LIR* needs a reasonable amount of address space, so I really fail to > see why someone would want a /24 PA instead of a /24 PI... (which costs > less, and has the same impact on the routing table). > > > Operationally, the "/24 PA" would come from the same blocks as /24 PI > anyway (minimum allocation size, etc.)... > > > If you're convinced that this really is a good thing, by all means go > ahead (and I won't oppose), I'm just afraid that this is a waste of > "policy making brain power", solving a not really existing problem... > > Gert Doering > -- APWG chair > -- Met vriendelijke groet, Jeroen Wunnink, EasyHosting B.V. Systeembeheerder systeembeheer at easyhosting.nl telefoon:+31 (035) 6285455 Postbus 48 fax: +31 (035) 6838242 3755 ZG Eemnes http://www.easyhosting.nl http://www.easycolocate.nl
- Previous message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
- Next message (by thread): DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]