>>: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 29 November 2006 (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)

I support those changes. Arguments are the same as Cathy gives.

WBR,

Dmitry Menzulskiy
DM3740-RIPE

----- Переслано: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy/BeeLine дата: 19.10.2006 18:30 -----

address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net написано 19.10.2006 15:26:57:

> 
> I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something 
> larger.  When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found 
> that the small AW made it very difficult to do my job.  I feel it's 
> more appropriate to give LIRs information about how to make wise and
> documented assignments to customers and then assume they're adults 
> and that they will do the right thing.  If they fail in this then 
> make it harder for them to get a subsequent allocation.  Making them
> ask permission for every customer assignment is just a pain. 
> 
> Thanks!
> ---Cathy
> 

> On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz < filiz at ripe.net> wrote:
> PDP Number: 2006-07
> Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
> 
> Dear Colleagues
> 
> The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended
> until 29 November 2006.
> 
> 
> This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available 
> to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses).
> Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the
> sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal
> suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096 
> IPv4 addresses).
> 
> You can find the full proposal at:
> 
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html 
> 
> 
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments 
> to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Filiz Yilmaz
> RIPE NCC
> Policy Development Officer 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20061019/45d90d0b/attachment.html>