Max, /29 in the global routing table is a bad thing. Those who need multihoming may use PA address space. Now, when contracts to support address space are necessery, there isn't much dfference between PI and PA. 2010/7/7 Max Tulyev <president@ukraine.su>:
Hi All,
I see the policy proposal now deny PI at all. Why?
Those who requsted PI (through us) usually are not so big to become a LIR and request /20. They even don't need it. By this proposal, you will stimulate small companies become a LIR and get /22 instead of for example /24 PI.
For my point of view, there should not be a difference between PA and PI distribution in the policy. Better is to make some actions to allow de-aggregate prefixes to more than /24. Then those who need /29 will ask for /29, not for /24 PI (now) or even /22 PA (if 2010-02 will be in power).
Emilio Madaio написав(ла):
PDP Number: 2010-02 Allocations from the last /8
Dear Colleagues,
The text of the policy proposal 2010-02 has been revised based on the community feedback received on the mailing list.
The draft policy document and the impact analysis for the proposal have also been published.
You can find the full proposal at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2010-02.html and the draft document at:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/draft-documents/ripe-492-draft2010-02.html
We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments to address-policy-wg@ripe.net before 4 August.
Regards
Emilio Madaio Policy Development Officer RIPE NCC
-- WBR, Max Tulyev (MT6561-RIPE, 2:463/253@FIDO)
-- Regards, Gennady Abramov