On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Aleksey Bulgakov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dear, all. > > I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on > current resource number and age of the LIR. > > E.g. > LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent > Or > First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - > /20 etc. > > I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good. > > I think the first suggestion will be an outright disaster. If I represented a LIR holding something around a /8 to a /10, I would jump on it and ensure that I was first in line. As would others with such large allocations. The second suggestion is hopeless, as it suggests an accelerated depletion, as well as guarantees that very soon, people will not be able to get the allocation size they request. As a matter of principle, I think the current and active policy is decent enough for new allocations. -- Jan
