[address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Smith
pfs at cisco.com
Thu Jul 8 00:21:41 CEST 2010
Hi Tore, Tore Anderson said the following on 7/07/10 23:01 : > > This obviously conflicts with the current minimum allocation size (/21). > Does the proposed policy intend to change the minimum allocation size > to /22 so that all LIRs are eligible to receive a /22 (no more, no > less), or to remove the minimum allocation size completely as suggested > by the analysis - even when contiguous /22s are available in the > unallocated pool? As you observe, minimum allocation of /21 makes no sense for a policy proposing maximum allocation of /22. Alain and I hadn't intended to document a minimum allocation size, but I certainly feel that it is very unlikely we'll see requests for allocations smaller than a /22 (I could be wrong of course). My preference is to leave it open so that folks wanting a smaller allocation can get it. philip --
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2010-02 New Draft Document Published (Allocations from the last /8)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]