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

On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote:

>
> On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
>>
>> 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 ?


FWIW, the trend seems to be in the other direction. /25 looks a lot  
more likely than /23.
>

-Scott