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

Hi Rob,

I was just about to make the same comments :)

I support the proposal although I would have proposed a minimum /24 (as 
it is in the other regions).

However, leaving the decision in the hands of the operators sounds good 
as well.

cheers,
elvis

On 24/03/14 16:05, Rob Evans wrote:
>>      http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2014-01
> Overall I think this is a good thing, but I wonder if there is a reason
> for leaving 5.4 (minimum sub-allocation size) as-is?
>
> If we open the door to transfer prefixes smaller than a /24, should
> sub-allocation of them be prevented?
>
> The routing side of me, of course, might consider the alternative of
> clamping the transfers at /24 too, but perhaps that should just be left
> for consenting adults to negotiate between themselves.
>
> Cheers,
> Rob
>