[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05

On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:

>
> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>
>> Since 2005-01-01, 128 assignments were made of less than /24 and  
>> 3934 of exactly /24.  These figures do not look to me like the  
>> results of 3934 honest assignment application forms.
>>
>> Turning this around, if the minimum PI assignment size were  
>> increased from /32 to /24, there would have been 23k extra PI  
>> addresses out of 5493760 total PI addresses assigned between  
>> 2005-01-01 and 2009-05.  That's about 0.4%.
>
> I agree that the amounts in question are trivial and the benefits to  
> the community (at least for the ten minutes or so that there is  
> unallocated ipv4 left...) will be appreciated by small orgs looking  
> for the benefits of multihoming - Nick's words are right as usual.
>
> However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum  
> assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the  
> minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are  
> not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced  
> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller  
> range.  But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial.


The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part of  
it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to make / 
23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their  
original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ?

Groet,

MarcoH