Hi Jasper,
On 30/08/2008, at 10:05 AM, Jasper Bryant-Greene wrote:
I opposed this policy on the basis that the impact on LIRs who
would not
be able to justify a /22 within six months did not seem to have been
considered fully.
Yes, that is a valid point that was also expressed by several others
at APNIC26.
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.
Obviously the advantage of this change is that it solves the problem
of prop-063 effectively doubling the minimum allocation size. The
downside of this approach is that any future changes to the minimum
allocation size will have to take this proposal into account.
If this approach is acceptable, then the authors will roll this into
v2 of this proposal for presentation at Manila.
My personal opinion is that a 12 month window for a minimum
allocation size is better than a six month window for one half of the
12 month minimum allocation size - though this is straying into a
discussion on what an appropriate minimum allocation size is, which
is unrelated to the intent of this proposal.
Cheers,
Jonny.
