I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something larger. When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found that the small AW made it very difficult to do my job. I feel it's more appropriate to give LIRs information about how to make wise and documented assignments to customers and then assume they're adults and that they will do the right thing. If they fail in this then make it harder for them to get a subsequent allocation. Making them ask permission for every customer assignment is just a pain. Thanks! ---Cathy<div> <div>On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz <<a href="mailto:filiz@ripe.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"> filiz@ripe.net</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> PDP Number: 2006-07 Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window Dear Colleagues The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended until 29 November 2006. This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses). Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096 IPv4 addresses). You can find the full proposal at: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html </a> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments to <<a href="mailto:address-policy-wg@ripe.net" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">address-policy-wg@ripe.net</a>>. Regards Filiz Yilmaz RIPE NCC Policy Development Officer </blockquote></div> </div>