Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments

> why is dsl different, from an address allocation view, than e1, flame
delay,
> point2point, etc.  it's just the layer 1 point-to-point technology used
for
> provisioning an end site.

In my oppinion it is not at should not be different. But what is different
is that we
are rolling out mass marked "always on" products in a larger scale than we
have
seen before.

What I don't think the poicies should do is to prevent products like home
lans.
I dont think policies should force providers or the customers to use NAT.

So going back to the original question, is it OK to assign a /29 to a home
network
(beeing connected with wathever technology) ?
I belive the answer is yes. I also belive that it is probably not
reasonalble to
expect an average customer to fill in the RIPE form. I also have a tendency
to think
that it is probably not usefull to demand the form to be filled out for a
/29...

So my opinion would be that:
- the policy should not encourage an ISP to make /29 the default product
- the policy should not prevent an ISP from making a product option to have
more than one IP address in a home network. (enabeled by clicking on a web
page
or some such.)

- I think it would be a huge vaste of resources if RIPE NCC hostmasters were
to spend their time reviewing RIPE forms for /29 for dsl, 3G or whatever
connected home¨ networks...

On the even more general side, I think more and more that we should be realy
carefull to
create to strong restrictions on the use of address space available to new
and smaller players
today, while there are no such policies in place for legacy address space.

-hph