On 27/03/14 10:34, Tore Anderson wrote:
* Carsten Schiefner
No, not really. I feel this being only loosely coupled at best. My proposal enables the transfer of allocations of *all* sizes and the conversion of PI assignments of *all* sizes into allocations.
Whether sub-allocations can be made from *all* these (new) allocations or "just" from those being at least a /24 appears as a separate question to me. Even more so, as the the sub-allocation mechanism has been applied or used very rarely only so far.
And having the "one thing at a time" principle in mind: if this impossibility is of concern to the community, then this should maybe be handled by a separate policy (modification) proposal. Hi Carsten,
I'm just of the opinion that removing one without the other leaves the policy in a counter-intuitive state. To me it would appear appropriate for a proposal titled «Abandoning the Minimum Allocation Size for IPv4» to remove all flavours of the minimum allocation size, including the one specific for sub-allocations.
+1 cheers, elvis -- <http://v4escrow.net> Elvis Daniel Velea Chief Business Analyst Email: elvis@V4Escrow.net <mailto:elvis@v4escrow.net> US Phone: +1 (702) 475 5914 EU Phone: +3 (161) 458 1914 Recognised IPv4 Broker/Facilitator in: This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original.Any other use of this email is strictly prohibited.
