On Jan 16, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008 2:09 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
[...]
Not a bad proposal, but where does this actually differ from becoming a LIR, except for a change in minimum allocation sizes ?
This was the point I was trying to raise at the last RIPE meeting. I think it may make sense to make a scalable policy that doesn't have a distinction between LIRs and enterprises. The border between the two is porous and a policy that doesn't assume LIRs being significantly larger than enterprises may be called for.
I would suggest that instead of two policies we should have one.
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-55/presentations/vegoda-v6-policy.pdf
Thoughts?
You have my vote :) Not that I think it's a strict requirement but the question could be raised if we need to introduce something like a 'NCC customer' next to the current membership to differentiate between those who are actually running an LIR, assigning end-user blocks from a larger aggregate and people simply having one or two single PI blocks which can't hold any suballocations/assignments. -- MarcoH