[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)

> I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4» to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one specific for sub-allocations.

> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317, and if we also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made»).

+1 
If we're removing the min allocation size parameter it would be inconsistent to have a limitation on sub-allocation. I doubt there'd be many uses for a sub-allocation smaller than /24, but as Tore outline there doesn't seem much benefit of having this constraint. We should aim towards less arbitrary restrictions in policy. 

Rgds,  
James 

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Tore Anderson
Sent: 27 March 2014 09:34
To: Carsten Schiefner; Rob Evans
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)

* Carsten Schiefner

> No, not really. I feel this being only loosely coupled at best. My 
> proposal enables the transfer of allocations of *all* sizes and the 
> conversion of PI assignments of *all* sizes into allocations.
> 
> Whether sub-allocations can be made from *all* these (new) allocations 
> or "just" from those being at least a /24 appears as a separate 
> question to me. Even more so, as the the sub-allocation mechanism has 
> been applied or used very rarely only so far.
> 
> And having the "one thing at a time" principle in mind: if this 
> impossibility is of concern to the community, then this should maybe 
> be handled by a separate policy (modification) proposal.

Hi Carsten,

I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4» to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one specific for sub-allocations.

Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317, and if we also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small assignments to be made»).

So I'd ask you to consider removing that paragraph as well before going to review phase. Note that since we're still in the discussion phase, doing so doesn't have to slow down the progress of the proposal, you can go straight to review with updated proposal (modifications at a later stage are much more cumbersome).

Just my €.02...your proposal, your call. ;)

Tore