AW: Initial PA Allocation Criteria
Hans Petter and all, I am not quite determined about the alternative. Yes, I think the initial requirement needs to be less then the /22, admitting that the situation will then not change dramatically, because a /24 is easy to prove. Concerning Dave's proposal:
Perhaps a clause to permit allocations to organisations that provide or can prove intent to provide commercial services to third parties should be added.
Who else is applying for a LIR? Couldn't everybody claim that? What about the already raised proposal to set-up a usage criteria and to (maybe bi-annually) revise allocations? Could that be handled from the NCC? And are we gonna have a further increase of LIR applications over the years to come? Is it worth it? More questions then answers. Regards Karsten
Von: Hans Petter Holen [SMTP:hph@online.no] Gesendet am: Donnerstag, 21. Juni 2001 13:52 An: Koepp, Karsten; lir-wg@ripe.net Betreff: Re: Initial PA Allocation Criteria
| after having read several opinions in this thread, | I still don't agree to some points. I do think, | the policy as proposed would represent a drawback | for start-ups entering the market.
But how do you propose to deal with that ? Lower the initial requirement to some lower percentage ?
-hph
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Koepp, Karsten wrote: ->Concerning Dave's proposal: ->>Perhaps a clause to permit allocations to organisations that provide or can ->>prove intent to provide commercial services to third parties should be ->added. -> ->Who else is applying for a LIR? Couldn't everybody claim ->that? As I see it there are two main types of application. 1. ISP like folks with customers who I think everyone would agree need their own allocation as soon as possible. 2. Large (and not so large) organisations who become an LIR just to obtain a globally routable prefix for Multihoming purposes. My suggested clause should allow us to apply different policies to the two types of applicant. Cheers Dave
participants (2)
-
Dave Pratt -
Koepp, Karsten