This is to complete an action on Mike Norris to re-send the original message concerning VSEs. Please refer to the archives for the discussion that followed. Daniel ------- Forwarded Message Date: Fri, 20 May 1994 09:57:15 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net> Sender: dfk@reif.ripe.net To: Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos@surfnet.nl> cc: Local IR <local-ir@ripe.net> Subject: Re: Address space for individuals

Erik-Jan Bos <erik-jan.bos@SURFnet.nl> writes:

...

This sums up my personal opinion.

Great, quite along my personal opinion, but we need a consistent approach among all Local IRs.

We will write something up next week. If someone else does before us we can use that! My proposal would read like: - very small enterprises (VSEs) are those <32 hosts now - last resort registries will not assign address space to VSEs - VSEs can use private address space (RFC1697) - VSEs are easy to renumber once they connect - VSEs are likely to connect with one host only - service provider registries will assign VSEs smaller amounts of address space than 8 bits where possible - service provider registries will register these smaller amounts in the RIPE database when possible Rationale: Very many VSEs with 8 bits of address space each will use up too much address space. Is this acceptable to all? Implementation: If this was accepted the NCC could accept classles inetnums very soon even before the indexing is fully classless. Question: Should we publish such things as RIPE documents or just circulate them among registries as "current practise recommendations". I personally think we should publish them, but have heared reservations. Daniel ------- End of Forwarded Message