I support the general idea of this proposal. Med vänlig hälsning Andreas Larsen IP-Only Telecommunication AB| Postadress: 753 81 UPPSALA | Besöksadress: S:t Persgatan 6, Uppsala | Telefon: +46 (0)18 843 10 00 | Direkt: +46 (0)18 843 10 56 www.ip-only.se Den 2013-09-27 12:25 skrev Tero Toikkanen <Tero.Toikkanen@nebula.fi>:
Dear all,
In general I support the direction of this proposal.
I have already mentioned some of my observations on other ongoing conversations, but here are a couple more:
5.2.3 "results in a doubling of the address space allocated to it" With larger blocks this seems a bit drastic to me. I.e. if a large corporation needs a new /32, but already has 4 of them, they will automagically get 4 /32s more. I assume this is to enable aggregation, but without making large reservations in the address pool for each End User, it probably wouldn't work for that purpose. In order to assess how reasonable this clause is, we would need to know how addresses are allocated and from where. I my opinion aggregation = good, large reservations for every single End User with a /32 = bad.
5.3.1 "When more than a /48 is to be sub-allocated to the same customer, the LIR or the End User (via the Sponsoring LIR) must request an approval from the RIPE NCC." This is a bit vague wording, which would probably be better by just removing the parentheses. I assume the idea is that the End User submits the request to the Sponsoring LIR, which then hands it over to RIPE NCC?
____________________________________ Tero Toikkanen Nebula Oy