On 21 October 2010 13:10, Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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.
Okay no I understand the intent better... How about the following situation: I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement for 253 more addresses to make it up... (I admit its unlikely but a potential situation that needs to be resolved) There is also a potential issue where you have a requirement to subnet multiple locations where you are using a number less than the full number of addresses (eg 33 sites with /29 but only 5 address being used at each site to round up to a /23 you need more that 248 addresses...) "Further assignments under section 6.10 will not be permitted for an End User until all existing assignments have reached 80% utilisation" J -- James Blessing 07989 039 476