I support those changes. Arguments are the same as Cathy gives.

WBR,

Dmitry Menzulskiy
DM3740-RIPE

----- Переслано: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy/BeeLine дата: 19.10.2006 18:30 -----

address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net написано 19.10.2006 15:26:57:

>
> I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something
> larger.  When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found
> that the small AW made it very difficult to do my job.  I feel it's
> more appropriate to give LIRs information about how to make wise and
> documented assignments to customers and then assume they're adults
> and that they will do the right thing.  If they fail in this then
> make it harder for them to get a subsequent allocation.  Making them
> ask permission for every customer assignment is just a pain.
>
> Thanks!
> ---Cathy
>

> On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz < filiz@ripe.net> wrote:
> PDP Number: 2006-07
> Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended
> until 29 November 2006.
>
>
> This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available
> to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses).
> Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the
> sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal
> suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096
> IPv4 addresses).
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html
>
>
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments
> to <address-policy-wg@ripe.net>.
>
> Regards
>
> Filiz Yilmaz
> RIPE NCC
> Policy Development Officer
>