j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
Thu Thuy wrote:
Your proposal is reasonable at this time. However, if you permit a previously allocation block to break into many separate /24s when transfer, then how about the aggregation goal. I'm wonder why this proposal do not base on current IPv4 management policy, that mean, the condition to transfer is /21 size address block with previously allocation block and /24 size address block with previously multihoming assignment.
Part of the motivation here in proposing this policy is to attempt to make the impact of the exhaustion of APNIC's stock of unallocated IPv4 addresses as small as possible. If there is to be some form of address transfers occurring subsequent to that point, then at that point in time there is no applicable "allocation block size," as there are no further allocations that can be performed.
Another observation is that there is no strictly enforceable routing aggregation policy, and while there is a continuous strong message about the benefits of maintaing aggregation, the operational practice continues to make extensive use of advertisements of more specifics, particularly /24s
(see http://www.cidr.org for a regular report on this, and http://www.potaroo.net/presentations/2004-05-01-allocation-vs-announcement.p... for the results of a more detailed analysis)