[address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Scott Leibrand
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Aug 18 17:06:54 CEST 2009
On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at marcoh.net> wrote: > > On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote: > >> >> On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote: >> >> However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum >> assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be >> the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks >> are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced >> loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller >> range. But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial. > > > The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part > of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to > make /23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their > original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ? FWIW, the trend seems to be in the other direction. /25 looks a lot more likely than /23. > -Scott
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Reopening discussion on RIPE Policy Proposal 2006-05
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2009-07 Last Call for Comments (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]