Hi Dmitry, On Dec 19, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Dmitry Kiselev wrote: [...]
Some minor questions: why /21? It is just current minimum allocation size? If yes, what about changes which possible in future?
Good question. I looked at the policy in other regions[0] and saw that there was quite a spread. For instance, APNIC's current policy[1] is very similar policy to RIPE's. In contrast, ARIN's current policy[2] requires small to large ISPs to seek ARIN's approval before making reassignments of a /19. That goes up to /18 for extra-large ISPs. ISPs in North America seem to cope fairly well with more freedom than is currently available in the RIPE region. However, 0 to /19 is a big leap. I thought that /21 was a good balance between providing LIRs with more freedom while limiting the amount of damage to a relatively small size. If the proposal is accepted and doesn't cause any significant harm then increasing the first AW from /21 to a shorter prefix may be appropriate in the future. Regards, -- Leo Vegoda IANA Numbers Liaison [0] http://www.nro.net/documents/nro41.html#2-5-1 [1] http://www.apnic.net/docs/policy/add-manage-policy.html#10.1 [2] http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four235