[address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 17 January 2007 (First Raise in IPv4 Assignment Window Size)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] 2006 IPv4 Address Use Report
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Draft Document Published (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Leo Vegoda
leo.vegoda at icann.org
Thu Jan 4 15:07:32 CET 2007
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
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] RE: [ipv6-wg] 2006 IPv4 Address Use Report
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2006-06 New Draft Document Published (IPv4 Maximum Allocation Period)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]