RE: Fixed Boundary (/29) Assignments
My $0,02: As I stated on the RIPE-meeting, one should consider the goal of preservation most carefully when contemplating any standard assignments for specific services. The proposed /29 assignment seems to me, (and I work for a cable provider), to be wasteful. I vote for the second option. Let the LIR ask for current and expected use. Rgds Bjarne Carlsen Fakse Municipality
I think we need to make sure we make it *absolutely* clear to the endusers that they have borrowed one or more IPnumbers, and that they have no "IP-for-a-lifetime" claims to those numbers in any way, neither in the count of them nor in the specific numbers they have. I personally think that NAT technologies work well enough that people can survive just fine with a single IP number. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
I agree with Bjarne. The proposed /29 assignment is wasteful. DSL customers should be dealt with as all the other. One official dynamically assigned /32 (no NAT here) pr. customer should do it for the majority of the "non business" customers. And if some of them needs to be assigned official addresses they must fill in "the form". And if some providers market DSL products which include 8, 16, 32 or more IP addresses, this is OK as long as these customers document their needs. I also think the RIR's should take notice of this practice and perhaps focus their audits on these providers. -- Regards, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl Nextra AS On Wed, 7 Feb 2001, Bjarne Carlsen wrote:
My $0,02:
As I stated on the RIPE-meeting, one should consider the goal of preservation most carefully when contemplating any standard assignments for specific services. The proposed /29 assignment seems to me, (and I work for a cable provider), to be wasteful.
I vote for the second option. Let the LIR ask for current and expected use.
Rgds Bjarne Carlsen Fakse Municipality
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. randy
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
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
One official dynamically assigned /32 (no NAT here) pr. customer should do it for the majority of the "non business" customers. And if some of them
What is the reason for assigning dynamic addresses to permanent links? (except wanting to bill more for a fixed address by calling it "business access") Gruss, Hauke -- Hauke Johannknecht Berlin / Germany HJ422-RIPE Use PGP ! -> lynx -dump http://www.ash.de/ash.asc | pgp -kaf
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Hauke Johannknecht wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, Thor-Henrik Kvandahl wrote:
One official dynamically assigned /32 (no NAT here) pr. customer should do it for the majority of the "non business" customers. And if some of them
What is the reason for assigning dynamic addresses to permanent links? (except wanting to bill more for a fixed address by calling it "business access")
You don't need to manage it, you just count ports. And you can reorganize the IPs easily. -- Regards Thor-Henrik Kvandahl Nextra AS
Gruss, Hauke
-- Hauke Johannknecht Berlin / Germany HJ422-RIPE Use PGP ! -> lynx -dump http://www.ash.de/ash.asc | pgp -kaf
participants (6)
-
Bjarne Carlsen -
Hans Petter Holen -
Hauke Johannknecht -
Poul-Henning Kamp -
Randy Bush -
Thor-Henrik Kvandahl