[address-policy-wg] 2014-01 New Policy Proposal (Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4)

Hi Tore, all -

On 27.03.2014 10:07, Carsten Schiefner wrote:
> On 27.03.2014 09:34, Tore Anderson wrote:
>> I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the
>> policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate
>> for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4»
>> to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one
>> specific for sub-allocations.
>>
>> Besides, one of the two stated reasons for having the minimum
>> sub-allocation size («[/24] is the smallest prefix length that can be
>> reverse delegated») is quite simply false, given RFC 2317, and if we
>> also accept the rationale for 2014-01, then we've essentially rejected
>> the other reason too («allows for a reasonable number of small
>> assignments to be made»).
>
> fair points - I shall retreat to my thinking chamber once more. ;-)

as I couldn't really come up with any good reason to keep the minimum 
SUB-allocation size in the policy, instead I was and still am able to 
follow your and others' reasoning to kick it out as well (although I 
also still believe these two are only loosely coupled :-), I have just 
filed a V2.0.

Cheers,

	-C.