Address space for individuals

On Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:57:15 +0200 Daniel Karrenberg said:

>My proposal would read like:
>
>	- very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now
>
The number may be even smaller.  I can't remember what the
commonly accepted figure is for the number of staff in a VSE,
but SMEs (small-to-medium enterprised) usually range from 10 
to 100 employees.  I would say that anything with >16 hosts now
is really an SME, not a VSE.

>	- last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs
>
>		- VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697)
>		- VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect
>		- VSEs are likely to connect with one host only
>
>	- service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts
>          of address space than 8 bits where possible
>
>	- service provider registries will register these smaller amounts
>	  in the RIPE database when possible
>
>Rationale:
>
>	Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up
>	too much address space.
>
>
>
>Is this acceptable to all?
>
Yes.

>Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles 
>inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless.
>
>Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just
>circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations".
>I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations.
>
RIPE documents are normally recommendations anyway, but derive a 
lot of their benefit from being public.  I say publish (and be 
praised ;-)

>Daniel

Mike