-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: David R Huberman [SMTP:huberman@gblx.net] Sendt: 8. februar 2001 01:34 Til: Robin Cc: lir-wg@ripe.net Emne: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
In my experience, most residential customers are quite happy to use private IP addresses
I must respectively disagree, and disagree vehemently. In my experiences, residential broadband customers, paying high monthly fees, demand publicly routable IP address space, citing both the very 'limitations' of private address space you articulate (e.g. Napster and other IP-dependent applications) [Bjarne Carlsen] This can easily be made with NAT or IP-masquerading. IME the average residential user does not give a hoot whether his address space is publicly routable or not, as long as he can run Napster or AGSatellite from all of his network, he is much more interested in IP-ports than in IP-addresses, since many providers block most IP-ports from their local network. and sales pitches of other providers who are willing to give them publicly unique address space just to close the deal. [Bjarne Carlsen] See answer to last para below.
For those customers requiring real IP addressing, I find that many of these are businesses. As such, it is very limiting to leave them with a /29
We are not discussing commercial broadband customers. The fixed-boundary assignment 'proposal' is exclusively for residential broadband customers.
My main object is with assignment based on usage requirements . I know people who run offices with dozens of people of a dual channel ISDN line. Does this make them less worthy of IP addreses that a single home user with a 3Mb DSL line?
IP requirements for commercial customers are based on traditional address policies - as such, organizations can obtain as much address space as they require based on justification. No one is ever denied address space which they can justify, right? [Bjarne Carlsen] Exactly - then why not let the users justify their actual needs instead of wasting up to 66% of the address space (this includes never-used IP's)?
I know that IP conservation is now more important than ever, but surely this could be policed better by promoting the use of private IP addressing, rather than by restricting users who cannot afford to buy more bandwidth.
Those who use private addressing schemes should certainly feel good about themselves, but no one is being restricted. If you can justify address space per the published criteria, you get it.
More importantly, the conservationist's desire to promote the use of private address space should not take precedence over real-world business concerns. [Bjarne Carlsen] Maybe not, but the real-world business is trying to oversell a limited commodity. Market demand for residential DSL is high, and in many markets, IPs have become a selling point. By allowing fixed-boundary assignments, RIPE effectively removes that facet of competition, equalling and opening the playing field to all and reducing IP waste in the long-term. [Bjarne Carlsen] No way! RIPE will effectively remove that facet of competition by _enforcing_ the rules as they are today - not by wasting address space on the proposed /29-scheme.
/david
/Bjarne