Hi, On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:48:58PM +0100, James Blessing wrote:
On 21 October 2010 12:36, Emilio Madaio <emadaio@ripe.net> wrote:
Either I'm going mental or doesn't the line:
"Cumulatively, no more than 248 additional IPv4 addresses may be assigned to any particular End User for the purposes outlined in section 6.10."
make the proposal completely pointless
It's a "stop the floodgates" clause to try to prevent abuse of this proposal. For the intended purpose ("give people a /24 that do not have the necessary amount of machines and do not want to lie to the NCC") it should not pose a problem - you have 3 machines plus a router, you need 4 addresses = /29. Add 248 addresses, reach /24. The emphasis is "additional" = "in addition to the addresses the requester can justify". The stopgap function is: if the same entity comes back three months later and asks for another /29-to-be-extended-to-a-/24, they won't get it. "Fill your existing /24 first." If that's not sufficiently clear, we might need to reword. Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- did you enable IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279