Re: [sig-policy] returned to list: prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4
> 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.
Cheers,
--
Jasper Bryant-Greene
Network Engineer, Unleash
p: +64 21 129 9458
e: jasper at unleash dot co dot nz
w: http://www.unleash.co.nz/
INOC-DBA: 38477