Re: [address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)

[Leo Vegoda <leo.vegoda@localhost]

Hi Dmitry,

On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote:

[...]

> Some minor questions: why /21?  It is just current minimum  
> allocation size?
> If yes, what about changes which possible in future?
Good question.

I looked at the policy in other regions[0] and saw that there was  
quite a spread. For instance, APNIC's current policy[1] is very  
similar policy to RIPE's. In contrast, ARIN's current policy[2]  
requires small to large ISPs to seek ARIN's approval before making  
reassignments of a /19. That goes up to /18 for extra-large ISPs.
ISPs in North America seem to cope fairly well with more freedom than  
is currently available in the RIPE region. However, 0 to /19 is a big  
leap. I thought that /21 was a good balance between providing LIRs  
with more freedom while limiting the amount of damage to a relatively  
small size.
If the proposal is accepted and doesn't cause any significant harm  
then increasing the first AW from /21 to a shorter prefix may be  
appropriate in the future.
Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison

[0] http://www.nro.net/documents/nro41.html#2-5-1
[1] http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#10.1
[2] http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four235