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. 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. So going back to the original question, is it OK to assign a /29 to a home network (beeing connected with wathever technology) ? I belive the answer is yes. 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... 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.) - 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... 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. -hph