SV: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments

> -----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
> Fra:	David R Huberman [SMTP:huberman at gblx.net]
> Sendt:	8. februar 2001 01:34
> Til:	Robin
> Cc:	lir-wg at ripe.net
> Emne:	Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
> 
>  
> > In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use
> private 
> > IP addresses
> 
> I must respectively disagree, and disagree vehemently. In my experiences,
> residential broadband customers, paying high monthly fees, demand publicly
> routable IP address space, citing both the very 'limitations' of private
> address space you articulate (e.g. Napster and other IP-dependent
> applications)
	[Bjarne Carlsen]  This can easily be made with NAT or
IP-masquerading. IME the average residential user does not give a hoot
whether his address space is publicly routable or not, as long as he can run
Napster or AGSatellite from all of his network, he is much more interested
in IP-ports than in IP-addresses, since many providers block most IP-ports
from their local network.
>  and sales pitches of other providers who are willing to give
> them publicly unique address space just to close the deal.
	[Bjarne Carlsen]  See answer to last para below.
>  
> > For those customers requiring real IP addressing, I find that many of
> these 
> > are businesses. As such, it is very limiting to leave them with a /29
> 
> We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary
> assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers.
>  
> > My main object is with assignment based on usage requirements . I know 
> > people who run offices with dozens of people of a dual channel ISDN
> line. 
> > Does this make them less worthy of IP addreses that a single home user
> with 
> > a 3Mb DSL line? 
> 
> IP requirements for commercial customers are based on traditional address
> policies - as such, organizations can obtain as much address space as they
> require based on justification. No one is ever denied address space which
> they can justify, right?
	[Bjarne Carlsen]  Exactly - then why not let the users justify their
actual needs instead of wasting up to 66% of the address space (this
includes never-used IP's)?

> > I know that IP conservation is now more important than ever, but
> > surely this could be policed better by promoting the use of private IP
> > addressing, rather than by restricting users who cannot afford to buy
> > more bandwidth.
> 
> Those who use private addressing schemes should certainly feel good about
> themselves, but no one is being restricted. If you can justify address
> space per the published criteria, you get it.
> 
> More importantly, the conservationist's desire to promote the use of
> private address space should not take precedence over real-world business
> concerns.
	[Bjarne Carlsen]  Maybe not, but the real-world business is trying
to oversell a limited commodity.
>  Market demand for residential DSL is high, and in many markets,
> IPs have become a selling point. By allowing fixed-boundary assignments,
> RIPE effectively removes that facet of competition, equalling and opening
> the playing field to all and reducing IP waste in the long-term.
	[Bjarne Carlsen]  No way! RIPE will effectively remove that facet of
competition by _enforcing_ the rules as they are today - not by wasting
address space on the proposed /29-scheme.

> /david
> 
	/Bjarne