[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)

Hi Tore,

Tore Anderson said the following on 7/07/10 23:01 :
>
> This obviously conflicts with the current minimum allocation size (/21).
>  Does the proposed policy intend to change the minimum allocation size
> to /22 so that all LIRs are eligible to receive a /22 (no more, no
> less), or to remove the minimum allocation size completely as suggested
> by the analysis - even when contiguous /22s are available in the
> unallocated pool?

As you observe, minimum allocation of /21 makes no sense for a policy
proposing maximum allocation of /22. Alain and I hadn't intended to
document a minimum allocation size, but I certainly feel that it is very
unlikely we'll see requests for allocations smaller than a /22 (I could
be wrong of course). My preference is to leave it open so that folks
wanting a smaller allocation can get it.

philip
--