On 29 jul 2009, at 21:22, Andy Davidson wrote:
On 25 Jul 2009, at 22:57, Nick Hilliard wrote:
Since 2005-01-01, 128 assignments were made of less than /24 and 3934 of exactly /24. These figures do not look to me like the results of 3934 honest assignment application forms.
Turning this around, if the minimum PI assignment size were increased from /32 to /24, there would have been 23k extra PI addresses out of 5493760 total PI addresses assigned between 2005-01-01 and 2009-05. That's about 0.4%.
I agree that the amounts in question are trivial and the benefits to the community (at least for the ten minutes or so that there is unallocated ipv4 left...) will be appreciated by small orgs looking for the benefits of multihoming - Nick's words are right as usual.
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 ? Groet, MarcoH