Hi, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Filiz Yilmaz wrote:
This proposal suggests to have the minimum assignment size for PI assignments to be a /24 when routing is a major issue for a multihoming End User.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-05.html
We encourage you to review this proposal and send your comments to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net> before 26 September 2006.
Hello. This proposal is proposing the same things I was arguing in my email, so I second this.
I have a question though, the proposal includes the notion of "major issue", perhaps this could be specified a bit more? Or is it clear how this would be interpreted by a hostmaster processing an application, that if the customer adds "I need to advertise this on the public internet" it will automatically be known that a at least a /24 is needed?
i think it's better to be that unspecific then to put in too tight wording - it's a policy, it needs months to be changed again later. Hostmasters@RIPE usually have a fair amount of wisdom :-) As stated earlier, I have no problems with wasting IPv4 address space anymore (there is IPv6, and most projections suggest, there's enough IPv4 space for decades to come, too) - so no problems with the change. Although one should think about what happens if /24 gets "not routable" due to the upcoming next round of memory restrains in BGP routers. Is it /23 then as next minimum? I didn't really get any comments on this a week ago on the discussion leading to this proposal, so i assume, it's not an issue to think about right now for most people? . o O(and i really wonder why there's still no rant about global routing table size increase by allowing routing issues to be PI-assignment relevant..) -- ======================================================================== = Sascha Lenz SLZ-RIPE slz@baycix.de = = Network Operations = = BayCIX GmbH, Landshut * PGP public Key on demand * = ========================================================================