Address space for individuals

Geert Jan de Groot writes:
 > 
 > Playing around with this leads to a few more interesting ideas. These
 > are personal; butcher them down if you don't like them:
 > - Maybe we should make a point that people who want address space
 >   'so they can connect later' to ask them to make a choice of ISP
 >   first and only THEN get address space (from the provider registry, 
 >   that is).  If they have a small network, say up to 100 hosts or so,
 >   having them use private address space and renumber once they connect
 >   should not be so bad.

  Agree fully but I think this should be announced from some more authorative
entity than a local-ir. RIPE will do fine. At least if there is a way to
prevent situation where the customer does not go to some ISP other than
the one handling the last-resort-ir and gets an address there and later
when he's about to connect, feels that he got bad service from the ISP/last-
resort-registry and goes to the ISP he got the addresses from.
  The point is that the above works if RIPE enforces this policy on ISP
registries and last-resort-registries. (on all you give address space)

 > - This would point more work to ISP-registries instead of the L-R registry.
 >   This brings down the work on the L-R registries (who do this for free,
 >   after all), and brings these costs to ISP registries (who might see this
 >   as 'customer service' and thus have justification why their IR-activities
 >   cost effort and money)
 > - It makes CIDR work better!
 >
Agree with these two too. When we get a 'RIPE recommendation' that we can
hand out to the applicants that apply for address space but are not planning
to connect in immediate future ?

Pete