Address space for individuals

> 
> 
>   > poole at eunet.ch writes:
>   > 
>   > If we go for some kind of CIDR'zed allocation of small nets, the
>   > policy should:
>   > 
>   > 	- use a clearly identifiable address range (not the current
>   > 	  class C's).
> 
> Why?

One of my nightmares is giving out a a sub-C allocation to a customer
who later on, gets an external company to come in and install a couple of
a new machines (don't forget we are talking about very small organisations
with little man-power and perhaps little know-how). First reaction will be:
"Ah, you've got a class C, you are using a funny subnet, but we can change
that."

Using a clearly identified address space that will -not- lead to confusion
or will at least make people stop and think before changing things, would
be a very good idea. 

> And how to do route aggregation?

I don't think this would be any worse (or just as good) as a completly
CIDR'zed class C address space, since these addresses would be provider
specific there would be no fragmentation problems).

[Note: I'm not convinced that this would actually work, but it is a logical
       step if we do claim that we are moving towards a classless IPv4
       Internet]

> 
>   > 	- be widely published (make it a big event).
> 
> Why?
> I think it would be much better to have something published widely that
> explained the registry system per se and not the specific details of
> allocation policy. We will have to start charging which will be yet another
> change. 

As I've pointed out before, the main problem is that the rules are not known,
this does make them easier to change, however is otherwise counterproductive.

A 1 page Ripe flyer explaining the current allocation rules and aims would
be a good start. There's nothing stoping us from adding a note that address
space will be charged for at one point in time.

Simon