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

* Philip Smith

> 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.

Hi Philip,

my concern is not with LIRs that for some reason or another want a
longer prefix than a /22, but with LIRs that cannot justify an immediate
assignment of a /22.  Remember that 12 months from now, LIRs will be
allocated space to cover the needs for a period to up to three months
only (cf. ripe-492, section 5.0).

I don't see anything in the current proposal that allows the NCC to
disregard this rule.  Not all LIRs will go through a /22 in three
months.  As I understand it, with no minimum allocation size in place,
the NCC would have no choice but to deny any requests for /22 coming
from these LIRs.  And because of the one allocation only rule, they will
be unable to come back and request more space after they've gone through
the /23 (or longer) they were able to immediately justify.

Best regards,
-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Tel: +47 21 54 41 27