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

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 16:37, Sakun Alexey wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I also support removing such limitation based on the reached size. I 
> think its not fair.
> If LIR has /19 - does this mean he dont need more ip addresses? I think
> no.

Hi,

This is one of the reasons we didn't put that criteria in the initial
version.
On the other hand, with proper clean-up (which I realise is not
something done regularily by most companies - LIR or not), a LIR having
a /19 could recover more "no-loger-used" space than a LIR having only a
/22 or a /21, and way less that a LIR having a /10 (which may under some
circumstance recover the equivalent of a full /22 just by performing
clean-up).

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs