[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson <
tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com> wrote:

> It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the APNIC region both
> allocations and assignments appear to be capped at a /22. 2012-04
> proposes capping PI at a /24, which I suppose may further diminish
> concerns that allowing PI in the first place will make the last /8 go
> away too quickly. On the other hand, limiting PI at /24 but PA at /22
> would still cause the effect of forcing organisations to become LIRs, if
> the organisation's requirement cannot be fulfilled with a /24 only.
> That's kind of pointless, if the only assignment they'll ever make as
> LIRs is to their own organisation. So I think it would be even better if
> we did like APNIC did and capped both PI and PA at a /22 - that way, all
> the internet organisations in the region gets to have life rafts of the
> exact same size. (But perhaps they should be equally priced also...)
>

I like your reasoning.

Regarding the parenthetical comment, I think it would be sane if there was
a slightly less-than-proportionate price increase going from /24 to /22,
and that this was decoupled from the whole PI/PA choice.

Maybe it should cost more to be a LIR, but I think that is a different
issue than the address block size.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20120509/c7ab886e/attachment.html>