Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments

leo vegoda wrote:
> Based on the above, we would like the Working Group to consider whether:
> 
>  -  a standard, fixed-boundary assignment is acceptable for residential 
>     broadband connections?

IMHO, no.  Why should the amount of address space assigned have anything to do
with the way that a network is connected to the outside world?

> Or
> 
>  -  should the requester (the LIR) be required to ask the subscriber how 
>     many IP devices will be connected and base the assignment upon this?

Yes, but maybe a simplfied version of ripe-141 might be adopted for these
cases.  

Perhaps, where the amount address space being requested is small, the
addressing plan and much of the request overview could be omitted.  For
example, reduce "addresses-immediate", "addresses-year-1", "addresses-year-2"
to a single "addresses-immediate" (or "addresses-year-2"?) question;
"subnets-immediate", "subnets-year-1", "subnets-year-2" could all be assumed
to be 1 (subnetting a /29 doesn't make sense as you lose too much address
space to net and broadcast addresses); PI-requested is inappropriate if such a
small amount of address space is expected to be routed throughout the
Internet.

That would leave the service provider with a simple form something like:

----------
	#[OVERVIEW OF ORGANIZATION TEMPLATE]#
	
		Private individual's home network
	
	#[REQUESTER TEMPLATE]#
	
	name:  			<all pre-completed by provider>
	organisation:
	country:
	phone:
	fax-no: (optional)
	e-mail:
	
	#[USER TEMPLATE]#
	
	name:			
	country:
	phone:
	fax-no: (optional)
	e-mail:
	
	#[REQUEST OVERVIEW TEMPLATE]#
	
	request-size:		
	addresses-immediate:
	inet-connect:		<pre-completed by provider>
	country-net:		<pre-completed by provider>
----------

This assumes that no address space is being returned, etc. which would
complicate matters and make it simpler to revert to using the normal ripe-141
form.

James