RLindsey at coinfotech.com
Mon May 16 19:59:32 EDT 2005
> > > As for my personal opinion, yes I do think that the policy is
> > > perhaps a bit too generous, especially in the case for more
> > > commodity style Internet services like DSL/cable/dorm rooms/WLAN
> > > Therefore, I think it would make sense to add a category for this
> > > kind users which would broadly fit into what most people describe
> > > users.
> > So... Just out of curiosity, what would your suggested policy for
> > class of users be? I tend to think /64 and possibly a new /56
> > category, but, certainly I would have trouble thinking that
> > anyone who might match the SOHO category to being unable to qualify
> > for multiple subnets is a bad idea. I think the gains of octet
> > boundaries are worth the tradeoffs (the dns hacks to handle VLSM
> > IN-ADDR delegation really are hacky).
> I think it is more useful to agree (or disagree :-)) whether creation
> such a category makes sense at all before diving into the exact
> what the limits should be. a /56 for SOHO users that need more than
> subnet would work for me and a /64 otherwise. However, I think an
> on whether creation of such a category is useful is way more important
> (for the moment).
Categories should not be based on who you are (home, SOHO, enterprise)
but rather on what you do with the address space and your justification
for it. I don't think it is rocket science to set some criteria around
number of hosts, number of subnets etc. similar to the current
A very simple (and no doubt inadequate) set of categories would be:
- 1 host (are we really talking about global routing entries at this
- 1 subnet (um, what size?)
- 2-5 subnets
- 6-20 subnets
Colorado Information Technologies, Inc.
More information about the ARIN-PPML