3 Apr
2012
3 Apr
'12
11:56 a.m.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 11:42:31AM +0200, Chris wrote:
also, policy clearly states its purpose to ensure 'consistent and fair' allocation 'to meet the needs', and that allocation is tied to usage/assignments.
sure, but a minimum allocation may be larger than the sum of the assignments - that doesn't mean the NCC can reclaim part of that allocation - or can it? Of course if a policy were to pass that would enable this sort of fragmenting of allocations and the resulting de-aggregation via prefix trading, one might as well make a policy that required the return of unused allocation parts. rgds, Sascha Luck