j: Next unread message
k: Previous unread message
j a: Jump to all threads
j l: Jump to MailingList overview
On Sat, 2008-08-30 at 14:37 +1200, Jonny Martin wrote:
On 30/08/2008, at 10:05 AM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
My understanding is that without a sister policy which reduced the minimum allocation size, this would effectively shut out some LIRs from getting addresses at all, since they would not be able to justify a /22 within six months, while they might previously have been able to within twelve months. Am I correct in this understanding?
That is correct.
How about an amendment to the proposal along the following lines:
- LIRs requesting the current minimum allocation size have a 12 month
timeframe with which to justify use of that space.
- LIRs requesting more than the current minimum allocation size will
only receive sufficient address space for their needs for the upcoming six months.
This maintains the current minimum allocation size to timeframe ratio.
I'd support the policy with this amendment.