[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)

Hi,


Am 21.10.2010 um 14:05 schrieb James Blessing:

> On 21 October 2010 13:01, Nick Hilliard <nick at inex.ie> wrote:
>> On 21/10/2010 12:48, James Blessing wrote:
>>> 
>>> Either I'm going mental or doesn't the line:
>>> 
>>> "Cumulatively, no more than 248 additional IPv4 addresses may be
>>> assigned to any particular End User for the purposes outlined in
>>> section 6.10."
>>> 
>>> make the proposal completely pointless
>> 
>> In what regard?
> 
> "The RIPE NCC will assign additional IPv4 addresses to an End User in
> order to make the assignment size a multiple of a /24"
> 
> Last time I looked /24 = 256 addresses
> 
> Therefore you can't give a 'new' end user a /24 as they have no
> address space to return and 256 > 248.
> 
> If it was 2048 then I could understand the logic...


You request a /30 and you don't get a /24.
You request a /29 and get a /24.
..and so on.
Just no more than 248 "additional" IPs to fill the request so it matches /24 boundaries.

I think that's how it's meant(?) though it does not make SO much sense.
Should be clearer in wording.

But i'm still of the opinion that no new IPv4 policy makes any sense anymore anyways.
Do we even have continuous /24s anymore in a few months? :-)

Anyways, i support the proposal in general since it wastes remaining IPv4 space, i like that.

-- 
bye
-slz