[address-policy-wg] 2006-05 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignment Size)

On 22 October 2010 01:24, David Croft <david at sargasso.net> wrote:
> On 21 October 2010 14:23, James Blessing <james.blessing at despres.co.uk> wrote:
>> I have 256 machines and 1 router, that's 257 addresses required. Under
>> the new wording I can't then have a /23 because I have a requirement
>> for 253 more addresses to make it up...
>
> Under that circumstance you'd get a /23 under existing policy.

Really? Not a /24 and a /29?

> The intent seems to be that if you'd normally be assigned a /29-/25,
> it's rounded up to a /24. The limit of 248 addresses presumably being
> to stop abuse, by enabling the NCC to assess this 'slack' across
> multiple allocations.

Oh, I agree with what the policy is trying to do. My problem is the
wording just needs a little tweak (see my previous suggestion)

J
-- 

James Blessing
07989 039 476