[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 16:04, Riccardo Gori wrote:

> It does not contain any /something limit (as example /20) already 
> administered by the requesting LIR.
> I would add some text as follows:
> [...]
> 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its 
> registry
> [...]

IF that is to be done, I'd say that the acceptable limit (from several
points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new
entrants (after 09/2012). That could also be spelled this way.
/20 was the initial idea too, but left aside for the first version.

Any other optinion on this (other than "global no" or "no, no, no") ?

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs