[sig-policy] minimum size & justify recipient use

[Izumi Okutani <izumi@nic.ad.jp>]

I'll start commenting based on Randy's list.

>   o inter-registry (067-4.3)
>   o seller must be full member (067-4.4 & 4.5)
>   o seller may not get more space (067-4.6)
>   o between nir members and others (your jpnic comment)


there was general support for JP operators on the above.
(which i shared details about "inter-registry")

>   o minimum size (067-4.1)

In terms of polling more support was expressed for /24,
but in the discussions more suppport was expressed for minimum
allocation size/protable assignment size.

Polling result
   /24: 34
   minimum allocation/protable assignment size: 13

Opinions were split like this:

 pro-/24
 * not likely to be practical to make it shorter than /24./24 is a
  reasonable size to ensure maintain smooth transfer of address space
 * cannot control routing by address policy. it should focus on the best
   way to meet the proposal goal rather than to consider other
   elements

 pro-minimum alloc size/portable assignment size
 * routing table growth is a serious problem for ISPs which should given
   priority to take a measure against it
 * it may not necessarily match the reality but it's better to start
   with shorter prefix first and adjust. you can't go back once you make
   it long
 * If you define it as /24, prefixes will be fragmented that far for
   sure, including prefixes which are currenly aggregated

I'll creat another thread for "justify recipient use".


izumi