24 Mar
2014
24 Mar
'14
6:12 p.m.
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:
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