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]

On Dec 20, 2006, at 8:11 PM, Leo Vegoda wrote:

[...]

> > In my opinion AW can be auto-rised to almost match most "popular"
> > assignments sizes. All further risings(lowers) can be done upon LIR
> > request.  If stats does not show clear peak - AW size can be aligned
> > to nearest bigest value.
> I am not sure I understand what you are proposing. Are you  
> suggesting that all assignment approvals should trigger an AW  
> raise? That is, if my LIR has an AW of /23 and I receive approval  
> to make a /22 assignment I should automatically have my AW set at /22.
I've not seen a response, but I'd like to outline why I think that a  
rapid series of raises is a bad idea.
My concern is that AW raises should not be seen as a reward but as an  
extra responsibility. A rapid series of raises is likely to appear  
like an evidence based reward. However, a time-based change from 0  
to /21 is clearly not an evidence based change and is much more  
likely to be viewed as a new responsibility. Emphasizing the LIR's  
ongoing responsibilities rather than their previous wise decisions is  
likely to lead to better results for everyone, I think.
Regards,

--
Leo Vegoda
IANA Numbers Liaison