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.