<html theme="default-light" iconset="color"><head> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head><body text="#485663">Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 06/03/2023 10:43: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:281efcf3-c3d2-b8c1-f914-b4969ec12b04@ripe.net"> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to the proposer. </blockquote> two issues: - I can't work out what the proposed new section 7 is saying. - there are a bunch of problematic edge cases associated with section 5. E.g. what happens if an IXP has a /23 and has 254 IP addresses used after 1Y? They will be obliged to downgrade to a /24, according to the current text. Also I don't know what a special circumstance is. The problems in section 5 can be fixed easily, but it depends on how the authors want to handle assignment upgrades / renumberings. I'd suggest either dropping the 1Y utilisation requirement to e.g. 40%, or else that if you reach e.g. 80% current usage, you qualify to receive an assignment of 2x the current, up to /22. Those figures are plucked out of the air btw. The point with them is that they are not 50%, which is obviously a magic number when the natural increase of assignment size would be to double the size of the block. Nick </body></html>