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

Rob, Tore, all -

first of all, my apologies for a delayed response; I am currently 
attending the ICANN 49 meeting in Singapore which sucks up quite a bit 
of my attention span. ;-)

On 24.03.2014 19:38, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Rob Evans
>> 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?
>
> I think not, that would not be consistent. Maybe it's just an oversight
> by the proposal's author to not have removed that particular paragraph?

No, not really. I feel this being only loosely coupled at best. My 
proposal enables the transfer of allocations of *all* sizes and the 
conversion of PI assignments of *all* sizes into allocations.

Whether sub-allocations can be made from *all* these (new) allocations 
or "just" from those being at least a /24 appears as a separate question 
to me. Even more so, as the the sub-allocation mechanism has been 
applied or used very rarely only so far.

And having the "one thing at a time" principle in mind: if this 
impossibility is of concern to the community, then this should maybe be 
handled by a separate policy (modification) proposal.

Best,

	-C.