All,
I'd like to strongly support the proposal as well.
To be fully honest here I've not yet encountered a single adress planning
exercise where "we" (which included organizations with +300K users and 700K IP
addresses in their IPAM database) didn't easily get along
with a /32. I hence initially shared the scepticism ("Rly? who needs more than
a /29?") brought up at the mic and on the mailing list.
Still, I found the perspective laid out by Mathew convincing and in general I
think RIPE policies (and their assumptions) shouldn't come into the way of
organizations with flexible needs based on their individual environments.
Overall the criteria provided by John (Collins) can be a reasonable starting
point for the development of criteria needed, but they'll probably need some
refinement.
Best
Enno
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 04:22:14PM +0200, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> On Fri May 22 John Collins wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Finally, I would like to call on the many "Enterprise LIRs" out there to
> consider this suggestion and if it makes sense to support it on the
> mailing-list. Also I ask the many "ISP LIRs" to lend their consideration
> and support. Your feedback is important. The success of IPv6 depends on
> both LIR categories gaining access to sufficient address space.
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> I represent on of these "Enterprise LIRs" and like to support this
> proposal. The organisational structure could request specific
> consideration in the IP address management design (e.g. caused by M&A,
> subsidaries or divisional independencies under a holding). The removed
> text in the new policy proposal
>
> ------------------begin---------------
>
> If so, the allocation size will be based on the number of existing users
> and the extent of the organisation's infrastructure.
>
> -----------------end------------------
>
> gives the freedom to allocated an address design independ by the number of
> existing users.
> We currently face the existing limitation by become LIR at ARIN and APNIC
> too. The additional address allocations helps us to cover the global parts
> of the company with sufficient address space but with additional expenses
> and costs.
>
>
> Mit freundlichen Gr??en / Kind regards / Meilleures salutations
>
> Thomas Schmidt
> IT Corporate Infrastructure Strategy, Network
> IT CO IN ST N
>
> Continental AG
> Vahrenwalder Str. 9, D-30165 Hannover, GERMANY
>
> Phone: 0049 511 938-1269
> Telefax: 0049 511 938-81269
> Email: [email protected]
> http://www.conti.com
> http://www.continental-corporation.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Continental Aktiengesellschaft, Postfach/Postbox 1 69, D-30001 Hannover
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats/Chairman of the Supervisory Board:
> Prof. Dr. Ing. Wolfgang Reitzle
> Vorstand/Executive Board: Dr. Elmar Degenhart (Vorsitzender/Chairman),
> Jose A. Avila, Dr. Ralf Cramer, Frank Jourdan, Helmut Matschi,
> Dr. Ariane Reinhart, Wolfgang Schaefer, Nikolai Setzer, Hans-Juergen
> Duensing
> Sitz der Gesellschaft/Registered Office: Hannover
> Registergericht/Registered Court: Amtsgericht Hannover, HRB 3527,
> USt.-ID-Nr./VAT-ID-No. DE 115645799
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> Proprietary and confidential. Distribution only by express
> authority of Continental AG or its subsidiaries.
--
Enno Rey
ERNW GmbH - Carl-Bosch-Str. 4 - 69115 Heidelberg - www.ernw.de
Tel. +49 6221 480390 - Fax 6221 419008 - Cell +49 173 6745902
Handelsregister Mannheim: HRB 337135
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Enno Rey
=======================================================
Blog: www.insinuator.net || Conference: www.troopers.de
Twitter: @Enno_Insinuator
=======================================================
