-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Hans Petter Holen [SMTP:hph@online.no] Sendt: 8. februar 2001 23:15 Til: lir-wg@ripe.net Emne: Re: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
why is dsl different, from an address allocation view, than e1, flame delay, point2point, etc. it's just the layer 1 point-to-point technology used for provisioning an end site.
In my oppinion it is not at should not be different. But what is different is that we are rolling out mass marked "always on" products in a larger scale than we have seen before. [Bjarne Carlsen] But what is different about it? It is - as Randy said - just the layer 1 point-to-point technology used for provisioning an end site (blatant cut'n paste here). The only real difference from "the good old days" that I can see, is that we are dealing with customers as single persons/families with lesser need for address space instead of companies with comparatively greater needs.
What I don't think the poicies should do is to prevent products like home lans. I dont think policies should force providers or the customers to use NAT. [Bjarne Carlsen] I agree, but I still think that the customers should be required by policy to somehow justify their needs for addresses.
So going back to the original question, is it OK to assign a /29 to a home network (beeing connected with wathever technology) ? [Bjarne Carlsen] That was not the original question. The question was whether a standard /29 assignment to all DSL/cable/insert-your-own-new-technology users would be feasible.
I belive the answer is yes. [Bjarne Carlsen] I heartily disagree: With a standard assignment, there is absolutely no justification for the used space. The proposed policy does not even assume that all addresses will actually be used - not even that they will be used eventually. I also belive that it is probably not reasonalble to expect an average customer to fill in the RIPE form. I also have a tendency to think that it is probably not usefull to demand the form to be filled out for a /29... [Bjarne Carlsen] Right, but the administration will have to be done at some point - whether it is done via a RIPE-141 or it is done some other way. The administrator should be the LIR in my opinion.
So my opinion would be that: - the policy should not encourage an ISP to make /29 the default product - the policy should not prevent an ISP from making a product option to have more than one IP address in a home network. (enabeled by clicking on a web page or some such.) [Bjarne Carlsen] And in my opinion the policy should not even _allow_ a /29 as default product - no tickee, no launly; no justification, no addresses.
- I think it would be a huge vaste of resources if RIPE NCC hostmasters were to spend their time reviewing RIPE forms for /29 for dsl, 3G or whatever connected home¨ networks... [Bjarne Carlsen] Yes, but the administration will still have to be done somewhere in the system...
On the even more general side, I think more and more that we should be realy carefull to create to strong restrictions on the use of address space available to new and smaller players today, while there are no such policies in place for legacy address space.
[Bjarne Carlsen] Couldn't have said that better myself.
-hph
/Bjarne