DRAFT: policy to allow smaller initial allocations (was: Re: [address-policy-wg] RE: Complaint: Overly complicated when requesting PI space)

Hello!

On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:28:14AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:


> 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?


Yes, we need this.  I support this proposition.


> 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).
 


PI does not allow end user assignments in it. In my opinion it is
good reason for allow /24 allocations.


 
> 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...


-- 
Dmitry Kiselev