Count me in guys. I also suggest assigned a minimum /24 PI when required, for example, by multi-homing. Greg At 14:58 2008.03.11., you wrote:
michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
Instead of dancing around the issue and forcing people into creative host accounting to justify a /24, let's just make it simple and offer that as the minimum when, and only when, the End User can show that routing is an issue. I would not be surprised to find that RIPE requires such End Users to already have an Asnum or apply for one at the same time. That seems reasonable.
AS should not really be in issue, either - we have several customers who at least want to be open for additional uplinks, or switching providers. Therefore, when going through the hassle of renumbering (and due to some programs that are licensed to a certain IP it can really be more than a hassle), they try to avoid another renumbering session in a more or less forseeable future ...
Anyway, I do second the suggestion of assigning a minimum /24 PI given sufficient reasoning behind the request ...
-gg