Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments

>[Bjarne Carlsen]  ... The only real
>difference from "the good old days" that I can see, is that we are dealing
>with customers as single persons/families with lesser need for address
space
>instead of companies with comparatively greater needs.

My point was that we are dealing with lots of customers and a small amount
of
address space.

You would not want to implement product where your mass market customers
have to justify their address ned by filling in a RIPE form.

> 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.
[Bjarne Carlsen]  I agree, but I still think that the customers
should be required by policy to somehow justify their needs for addresses.

How to you propose to do that ?

By pushing a button on your web site saying "yes I have more that one PC"
or by sending you pictures of all their computers ?

I know that it may be sightly controversal, but for this small amount of
address space I
belive that the ony justification needed from the customer is an active
choice of
one product over another.

> So going back to the original question, is it OK to assign a /29 to a home
> network
> (beeing connected with wathever technology) ?
[Bjarne Carlsen]  That was not the original question. The question
was whether a standard /29 assignment to all
DSL/cable/insert-your-own-new-technology users would be feasible.

Well, you may be right, but you cant adapt my conclusion to a
slightly different question.

> I belive the answer is yes.
[Bjarne Carlsen]  I heartily disagree: With a standard assignment,
there is absolutely no justification for the used space. The proposed policy
does not even assume that all addresses will actually be used - not even
that they will be used eventually.

I agree, but I was trying to reason around that, sorry for not beeing clear.
(My wording should have been: So going back to what should have been the
original question)

-hph