[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)

Max,
/29 in the global routing table is a bad thing.

Those who need multihoming may use PA address space. Now, when
contracts to support address space are necessery, there isn't much
dfference between PI and PA.

2010/7/7 Max Tulyev <president at ukraine.su>:
> Hi All,
>
> I see the policy proposal now deny PI at all. Why?
>
> Those who requsted PI (through us) usually are not so big to become a LIR
> and request /20. They even don't need it. By this proposal, you will
> stimulate small companies become a LIR and get /22 instead of for example
> /24 PI.
>
> For my point of view, there should not be a difference between PA and PI
> distribution in the policy. Better is to make some actions to allow
> de-aggregate prefixes to more than /24. Then those who need /29 will ask for
> /29, not for /24 PI (now) or even /22 PA (if 2010-02 will be in power).
>
> Emilio Madaio написав(ла):
>>
>> PDP Number: 2010-02
>> Allocations from the last /8
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> The text of the policy proposal 2010-02 has been revised based on the
>> community feedback received on the mailing list.
>>
>> The draft policy document and the impact analysis for the proposal
>> have also been published.
>>
>>
>> You can find the full proposal at:
>>
>>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html
>>    and the draft document at:
>>
>>    http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2010-02.html
>>
>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 4 August.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Emilio Madaio
>> Policy Development Officer
>> RIPE NCC
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> WBR,
> Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253 at FIDO)
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Gennady Abramov