<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Tore Anderson <<a href="mailto:tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com" target="_blank">tore.anderson@redpill-linpro.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> It's also worth noting, perhaps, that in the APNIC region both allocations and assignments appear to be capped at a /22. 2012-04 proposes capping PI at a /24, which I suppose may further diminish concerns that allowing PI in the first place will make the last /8 go away too quickly. On the other hand, limiting PI at /24 but PA at /22 would still cause the effect of forcing organisations to become LIRs, if the organisation's requirement cannot be fulfilled with a /24 only. That's kind of pointless, if the only assignment they'll ever make as LIRs is to their own organisation. So I think it would be even better if we did like APNIC did and capped both PI and PA at a /22 - that way, all the internet organisations in the region gets to have life rafts of the exact same size. (But perhaps they should be equally priced also...) </blockquote></div> I like your reasoning. Regarding the parenthetical comment, I think it would be sane if there was a slightly less-than-proportionate price increase going from /24 to /22, and that this was decoupled from the whole PI/PA choice. Maybe it should cost more to be a LIR, but I think that is a different issue than the address block size. -- Jan