[sig-policy] minimum size & justify recipient use
> 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