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

Hi,

On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:23:58PM +0000, Sascha Luck wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 06:13:19PM +0100, Gert Doering wrote:
> >You won't, just request IPv6.  For IPv4, it will be slightly hard, for
> >the foreseeable future, to achieve that.
> >
> >IOW, I have no idea what you are trying to tell us here...?
> 
> What I'm trying to tell you here is that abolition of any min-alloc size
> will again require demonstration of "need" in order to get a useful (ie.
> routeable) allocation (with all that this entails). 

The proposal at hand is not affecting "last /8" policy, and as such,
has no influence on routability of allocations handed out by the RIPE NCC.

> Another good question is whether under final-/8 rules, if you can only
> justify, say a /29, this will be the last request considered?

Justification of a single IP address will give you your last-/8-/22, if
you had none before.  There is no granularity in last-/8 allocations, it's
"a single piece of standard-size fits all".

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20140329/50cbe49f/attachment.sig>