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.