[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov <aleksbulgakov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear, all.
>
> I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on
> current resource number and age of the LIR.
>
> E.g.
> LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent
> Or
> First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months -
> /20 etc.
>
> I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.
>
>
I think the first suggestion will be an outright disaster.

If I represented a LIR holding something around a /8 to a /10, I would jump
on it and ensure that I was first in line. As would others with such large
allocations.

The second suggestion is hopeless, as it suggests an accelerated depletion,
as well as guarantees that very soon, people will not be able to get the
allocation size they request.

As a matter of principle, I think the current and active policy is decent
enough for new allocations.
-- 
Jan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151020/310822f0/attachment.html>