On Aug 18, 2009, at 2:50 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> wrote:
On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
However, I don't think we should mandate that /24 be the minimum assignment size - the rule should allow requests for a /24 to be the minimum size for announcement on the Internet, but if networks are not planning to announce the prefix via bgp (e.g. non-announced loopback ranges), then they should be allowed to request a smaller range. But as you say if we do mandate this the effect is trivial.
The question remains what to do when "the internet" - or some part of it - decide to filter on /23. Do we modify the policy again to make /23 the minimum ? Are we going to allow people to hand in their original /24 assignment and grow it to /23 ?
FWIW, the trend seems to be in the other direction. /25 looks a lot more likely than /23.
-Scott