Hi, On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 04:01:32PM +0200, Nils Ketelsen wrote:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 03:37:57PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
I see absolutely no need in assigning gigantic netblocks (like /8s) to the RIRs. The few RIRs now do not at all mean, that there will be only few in 20 years. Then we might have NIRs (N=National). In that case we already need around 150 /8s? Or we might have PIRs (P=planetary)? Or we have something that does not end in IR at all?
Nothing in the proposed policy document prevents this.
Sorry, I misunderstood you then. I thought you were proposing to assign a /8 to the RIR directly from start on. I actually like the idea of making the assignments for the current RIRs far apart from each other allowing their block to grow or to assign the space in between to other organizations should it move in this direction.
OK, so we are actually agreeing here :-) - I like the proposal as it is (with a /12 for a start). The /8 came up because that would be something I'd like *more* - but I am aware that there is no consensus for that, so the whole discussion is sort of moot. [..]
So if the ripe can show a need for a /12 in the next 3 years give them one. If they can not, make it a /16 or a /20 or whatever the ripe will need. Same goes for the other RIRs.
Having *plenty* of space at the RIR level is useful, because it means "the RIR can leave lots of spare space between LIR allocations", so LIRs can grow without needing to get a new address block. There is no benefit in reducing a RIR to a /16 or /20 - there are really enough /12s out there (even if you assume 150 NIRs plus a PIR). Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 65398 (60210) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299