[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] report address policy violation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Carsten Schiefner
ripe-wgs.cs at schiefner.de
Wed Apr 9 11:25:02 CEST 2014
Hi Tore, all - On 27.03.2014 10:07, Carsten Schiefner wrote: > On 27.03.2014 09:34, Tore Anderson wrote: >> I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the >> policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate >> for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4» >> to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one >> specific for sub-allocations. >> >> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum >> sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be >> reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317, and if we >> also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected >> the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small >> assignments to be made»). > > fair points - I shall retreat to my thinking chamber once more. ;-) as I couldn't really come up with any good reason to keep the minimum SUB-allocation size in the policy, instead I was and still am able to follow your and others' reasoning to kick it out as well (although I also still believe these two are only loosely coupled :-), I have just filed a V2.0. Cheers, -C.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] report address policy violation
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]