* Philip Smith
Tore Anderson said the following on 7/07/10 23:01 :
This obviously conflicts with the current minimum allocation size (/21). Does the proposed policy intend to change the minimum allocation size to /22 so that all LIRs are eligible to receive a /22 (no more, no less), or to remove the minimum allocation size completely as suggested by the analysis - even when contiguous /22s are available in the unallocated pool?
As you observe, minimum allocation of /21 makes no sense for a policy proposing maximum allocation of /22. Alain and I hadn't intended to document a minimum allocation size, but I certainly feel that it is very unlikely we'll see requests for allocations smaller than a /22 (I could be wrong of course). My preference is to leave it open so that folks wanting a smaller allocation can get it.
Hi Philip, my concern is not with LIRs that for some reason or another want a longer prefix than a /22, but with LIRs that cannot justify an immediate assignment of a /22. Remember that 12 months from now, LIRs will be allocated space to cover the needs for a period to up to three months only (cf. ripe-492, section 5.0). I don't see anything in the current proposal that allows the NCC to disregard this rule. Not all LIRs will go through a /22 in three months. As I understand it, with no minimum allocation size in place, the NCC would have no choice but to deny any requests for /22 coming from these LIRs. And because of the one allocation only rule, they will be unable to come back and request more space after they've gone through the /23 (or longer) they were able to immediately justify. Best regards, -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ Tel: +47 21 54 41 27