[policy-wg] Policy proposal: IPv4 allocation to End Users

[McTim]

Gents,

Apologies for multiple posts coming up, but I would like to make a
point or two about each of your mails.

On 4/25/05, Gregory Massel <gregm at datapro.co.za> wrote:
> /24 ?
> 
> This seems to be a bit out of line with the other RIRs and given the current
> exponential growth of the global routing table, may need reconsideration.
> 

A route is a route, whether it is /30, /24 or /14, it's still one route.

> The proposed policy doesn't make it clear if this applies only to critical
> infrastructure or if that is simply one example.

It is clear to me that it applies to any and all.

> > b) Justification of an immediate need of at less 50% of total requested
> > size based on its Network Infrastructure. Eg: new Company.

I think the above should read "at least 50%..." just a typo?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG