[address-policy-wg] 2015-05

Colleagues,
I'd say /21 with review of the policy scheduled within two years.

Regards,
Dominik



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Sent: 02 November 2015 16:23
To: Riccardo Gori <rgori at wirem.net>; address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [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