Date: Tue, 26 Sep 95 15:50:30 -0400 From: jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) Message-ID: <9509261950.AA04633@ginger.lcs.mit.edu> From: David Conrad <davidc@apnic.net> >> The category is self-determined by the organization. Everyone's going to classify themselves as the smallest, then... Not necessarily, this may actually be quite clever. Apart from gih's vanity, which will tend to cause isp's to push themselves into bigger classes, and jnc's $s, which will tend to push them to smaller ones, there's also the issue of addr allocations - an isp that claims to be "small" can hardly then claim to need a /8 or even /16 or something, now can they? That should mean, that in practice, an ISP can't claim to be smaller than they are and still have available addresses for new clients. Particlarly vane ISP's may still pay the higher amounts, but as no statement has been made that connects the size of the ISP to addr space allocations, there is no obligation to give small ISP's with big egos lots of addresses. Whoever (at RIPE I assume) dreamed up this scheme did a good job. kre