[address-policy-wg] New Policy Proposal (PI - PA Transfer)

Hi Andrea and thanks for the update!

> This would allow for PA allocations smaller than the minimum
> allocation size. It is our understanding that this last point would
> require a policy change.

Out of curiousity, how did these come about then?

ripencc|SE|ipv4|193.108.42.0|512|20010406|allocated
ripencc|DE|ipv4|193.218.220.0|512|19981110|allocated
ripencc|PT|ipv4|194.117.48.0|512|19941206|allocated
ripencc|IT|ipv4|194.153.212.0|512|20000509|allocated

FWIW, I've always considered the minimum allocation size the minimum
size *that the RIPE NCC may allocate* - not the minimum allocation size
that may exist in the database at a given point in time. The existence
of the above four allocations appears to preclude the latter
interpretation in any case.

With the former interpretation PI->PA conversions for blocks smaller
than the minimum allocation size is quite OK by policy, as it isn't an
allocation performed by the RIPE NCC from the free pool. Besides, I
can't think of any reason for having a minimum allocation size in the
first place except to prevent deaggregation, but these as those PI
blocks are already deaggregated that's not applicable here either.

IMHO, anyway...

Tore