Marshall Eubanks wrote:
On Aug 18, 2009, at 5:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning wrote:
On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
[...]
... - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller range.[...]
Why would anyone opt for the possibility to get *less* address space? Essentially, in my personal opinion, supporting this proposal is like suggesting to go back to the classful, pre-CIDR times through the backdoor. How would a LIR argue opposite a customer asking for a /24 from PA space when the need is only good for a, say, /26 PA, when the customer can get a /24 PI for (the proposed, flat) € 50,- per year? Probably for much less, if the customer's negotiation skills are just a tad above minimum ;-) Wilfried. PS: one group in my Org has been in this problem space just recently, and still I do NOT support the proposal, as the manager for our LIR ;-)