Hi, I just want to quickly pop in and say that I really agree with Nick in wanting to avoid these "magic numbers". I do not know which numbers would be appropriate, but probably somewhere around 40-45% (instead of 50%).
-Cynthia On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 5:04 PM Nick Hilliard <[email protected]> wrote: > > Angela Dall'Ara wrote on 06/03/2023 10:43: > > As per the RIPE Policy Development Process (PDP), the purpose of this > four-week Discussion Phase is to discuss the proposal and provide feedback to > the proposer. > > > two issues: > > - I can't work out what the proposed new section 7 is saying. > - there are a bunch of problematic edge cases associated with section 5. E.g. > what happens if an IXP has a /23 and has 254 IP addresses used after 1Y? They > will be obliged to downgrade to a /24, according to the current text. Also I > don't know what a special circumstance is. > > The problems in section 5 can be fixed easily, but it depends on how the > authors want to handle assignment upgrades / renumberings. I'd suggest either > dropping the 1Y utilisation requirement to e.g. 40%, or else that if you > reach e.g. 80% current usage, you qualify to receive an assignment of 2x the > current, up to /22. Those figures are plucked out of the air btw. The point > with them is that they are not 50%, which is obviously a magic number when > the natural increase of assignment size would be to double the size of the > block. > > Nick > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/address-policy-wg
