[address-policy-wg] minimum allocation size in case of transform addresses

* Andrzej Dopierała

>> I found today out, that there is planed possibility to convert PI
>> assignments to PA allocation.
>> But - i'ts planed only for /22 and bigger assignments, due to minimum
>> allocation size, and doesn't apply for example /23 or /22 assignemnts.
>>
>> I think it's a bit pointless.

Agreed. If the assignment is smaller than the minimum allocation size to
begin with, I don't see any harm in allowing one to convert to PA
completely as long as it's a one-to-one swap that does not cause further
deaggregation.

For what it's worth, there are already several allocations smaller than
the minimum allocation size in effect at the time they were made:

ripencc|GB|ipv4|79.143.80.0|1024|20120810|allocated
ripencc|GB|ipv4|79.143.84.0|1024|20120810|allocated
ripencc|FR|ipv4|82.196.24.0|1024|20031027|allocated
ripencc|FR|ipv4|82.196.28.0|1024|20031027|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.192.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.196.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.200.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.204.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.216.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.220.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.224.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|BG|ipv4|84.238.228.0|1024|20040810|allocated
ripencc|CZ|ipv4|91.201.20.0|1024|20080123|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|128.0.152.0|1024|20120914|allocated
ripencc|IL|ipv4|192.114.84.0|1024|19990603|allocated
ripencc|SE|ipv4|193.108.42.0|512|20010406|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|193.218.216.0|1024|19981110|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|193.218.220.0|512|19981110|allocated
ripencc|PT|ipv4|194.117.48.0|512|19941206|allocated
ripencc|IT|ipv4|194.153.208.0|1024|20000509|allocated
ripencc|IT|ipv4|194.153.212.0|512|20000509|allocated
ripencc|PL|ipv4|195.140.236.0|1024|20031001|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|213.153.80.0|1024|20000324|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|213.153.84.0|1024|20000324|allocated

I don't know why and how they came about, but they're there at least.

* David Farmer

> This is one reason to not completely eliminate all the existing IPv4
> policies with 2013-03.  They can still be useful, and may be useful in
> the future.  Otherwise, you have to revisit the consensus for issues
> like what the appropriate minimum allocations size should be in what
> situations.

Please read 2013-03 more carefully. It retains the concept of a minimum
allocation size. It does change it from the obsolete and incorrect /21
(which hasn't been true since the implementation of the last /8 policy)
to the correct /22, though. Quoting from the proposed policy: «The RIPE
NCC's minimum allocation size is /22».

When it comes to assignments, there is currently no minimum size defined
in the policy, and 2013-03 does not change this in any way. That said,
ripe-555 documents that: «The smallest prefix assigned by the RIPE NCC
from any IPv4 range is a /29».

Tore