Re: [sig-policy]Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size

To: Izumi Okutani <izumi at nic dot ad dot jp>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy]Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
From: Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:34:09 -0800
Cc: ahmad at apjii dot or dot id, thuthuy at vnnic dot net dot vn, sig-nir at lists dot apnic dot net, sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net, nir at apjii dot or dot id
List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-nir/>
List-help: <mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG for National Internet Registries (NIRs) <sig-nir.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-nir@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-nir>,<mailto:sig-nir-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <5.1.1.6.1.20031210134259.0277c870@pop3.apjii.or.id><20031210211256C.izumi@nic.ad.jp>
Sender: sig-nir-admin@lists.apnic.net

>    --> may lead to networks which can meet their needs with portable
>        assignments requesting portable allocations. 
>        e.g) lowering the criteria to "use /24 immediately" would make
>             a substantial number of enduser networks eligible to
>             receive allocations
>    --> a suggestion was made to add/replace with a multi-homing
>        criteria if lowering the size
> 
>  - needs a clarification in the portable assignment policy
>    --> losening the allocation criteria makes the distinction between
>        portable assignments and LIR direct allocations vague

thank you, thank you, thank you.  and my routers than you.

i was thinking of proposing ipv4 allocations at /32, so the
system would become entirely fair and there would be no
barriers to entry.  but satire does not come across well in
a multi-cultural environment.

there is a delicate balance.

randy