Address space for individuals

  > poole at eunet.ch writes:
  > 
  > I beg to differ with most of the opinions voiced up to now. I have
  > big problems with Ripe rushing off and changing the rules yet another
  > time  with -no- convincing arguments and analysis that any significant
  > problem will be solved by this change of policy.

Can you please point to other needless and unmotivated changes? 
Otherwise I will regard this paragraph as noise. 

  > Before I would agree to a formal "sub-class C" allocation policy, 
  > I would like to see:
  > 
  > 	- a study on how much address space will be actually saved 
  > 	  by this change. 

If any address space can be saved and there are no ill effects this is
not really a necessity. 

  >Taking into account:
  > 
  > 		- current available services from ISP's. For example
  > 		  a large number of ISP's already have "single address"
  > 		  dialup IP services where address are allocated out
  > 		  of ISP network numbers.

This is just a special case of doing what the proposal says. 

  > 		- granularity of allocation.

I don't understand what you mean exactly.  Currently noone can assign
anything smaller than 8 bits. 

  > 		- loss of efficency due to the fact that most ISP's
  > 		  do not use CIDR capable routing protocols internally.

If it cannot be done it cannot be done.  If it can be done it should be
done.  I do not understand what "loss of efficiency" means.  If it is
too ineficcient for whatever reason (which you do not discuss) then it
cannot be done.  The proposal just says that "last-resort" IRs will not
assign address space and ISPs should do their best. Some will do better
and some will do badly.

  > 		- projected demand for address space for less than
  > 		  32 hosts. This will require statistical information
  > 		  on company size etc. 

This is shooting a fly with a 122mm gun.

Projections can also be called "wild guesses".  Any reliable projections
in a fast developing market as ours are bound to be either very
inaccurate or very short term.  Several last-resort registries have
experienced demands from individual users and/or very small companies. 
This is projection enough for me. 

  >               (I don't think the odd hobbyist
  > 		  with more than one machine is of such great concern.)

Your personal projection. 

I for one am quite sure that this case and the case of very small
enterprises is all but odd.  I see such requests daily and I am sure we
see only a fraction of them at the NCC.  Other evidence: the discussion
about domain names for individuals.  If there are only 1024 of these
requests (very low estimate) to all EU last-resort registries in the
next 12 months we can either assign them 18 bits of address space (4Bs
or 1024Cs for old-timers) or nothing. 

  > 	- disussion of alternatives (new classes of Internet numbers
  > 	  etc.) and why they do not solve the problem.

If you want to discuss an alternative, propose one. 

(BTW: the IPv4 Internet is going classless.  A new "class" is going
backwards.)

  > 	- a discussion on the operational pro's and con's on such an
  > 	  allocation policy, including administration.

Of course a wirtten up proposal will discuss some of this.  But we are
just in the stage of discussion. Name a few cons.

  > 	- a "rough consenus" between all parties that this is a good idea,
  > 	  this would at least include the IETF,

IETF is for engineering. If you insist I can raise the issue in the IETF
cidrd group. I don't quite see the point though.

  >       and commercial representatives
  > 	  of all major ISP's. 

That is what we have RIPE for and in this case the local-ir WG.  If your
representatives there are not commercial enough, you have an internal
communication problem. 

The differences in allocation policies between regional registries are being
addressed and not part of this discussion.

Daniel