Hello! On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:28:14AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:19:26AM +0200, Remco van Mook wrote:
So here goes. This is what I think that policy should look like. Any comments before I formally submit it?
Do we *really* need this?
Yes, we need this. I support this proposition.
The network that started this topic ("we have 10 locations that need a /24 each") is not your typical *LIR* in the first place, and might really be better suited with PI /24s - as that's what they are doing: connecting "independent locations" to the Internet. They are not doing LIR business.
A *LIR* needs a reasonable amount of address space, so I really fail to see why someone would want a /24 PA instead of a /24 PI... (which costs less, and has the same impact on the routing table).
PI does not allow end user assignments in it. In my opinion it is good reason for allow /24 allocations.
Operationally, the "/24 PA" would come from the same blocks as /24 PI anyway (minimum allocation size, etc.)...
If you're convinced that this really is a good thing, by all means go ahead (and I won't oppose), I'm just afraid that this is a waste of "policy making brain power", solving a not really existing problem...
-- Dmitry Kiselev