poole@eunet.ch writes:
If we go for some kind of CIDR'zed allocation of small nets, the policy should:
- use a clearly identifiable address range (not the current class C's).
Why?
One of my nightmares is giving out a a sub-C allocation to a customer who later on, gets an external company to come in and install a couple of a new machines (don't forget we are talking about very small organisations with little man-power and perhaps little know-how). First reaction will be: "Ah, you've got a class C, you are using a funny subnet, but we can change that." Using a clearly identified address space that will -not- lead to confusion or will at least make people stop and think before changing things, would be a very good idea.
And how to do route aggregation?
I don't think this would be any worse (or just as good) as a completly CIDR'zed class C address space, since these addresses would be provider specific there would be no fragmentation problems). [Note: I'm not convinced that this would actually work, but it is a logical step if we do claim that we are moving towards a classless IPv4 Internet]
- be widely published (make it a big event).
Why? I think it would be much better to have something published widely that explained the registry system per se and not the specific details of allocation policy. We will have to start charging which will be yet another change.
As I've pointed out before, the main problem is that the rules are not known, this does make them easier to change, however is otherwise counterproductive. A 1 page Ripe flyer explaining the current allocation rules and aims would be a good start. There's nothing stoping us from adding a note that address space will be charged for at one point in time. Simon