[address-policy-wg] 2006-07 Discussion Period extended until 29 November 2006 (Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window)

I support changing the assignment window to a /21 or even something larger.
When I worked for a company that was a RIPE LIR I found that the small AW
made it very difficult to do my job.  I feel it's more appropriate to give
LIRs information about how to make wise and documented assignments to
customers and then assume they're adults and that they will do the right
thing.  If they fail in this then make it harder for them to get a
subsequent allocation.  Making them ask permission for every customer
assignment is just a pain.

Thanks!
---Cathy

On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz <filiz at ripe.net> wrote:
>
> PDP Number: 2006-07
> Minimum IPv4 Assignment Window
>
> Dear Colleagues
>
> The Discussion Period for the the proposal 2006-07 has been extended
> until 29 November 2006.
>
>
> This proposal suggests the minimum Assignment Window (AW) available
> to LIRs should be raised from zero (0) to /21 (2048 IPv4 addresses).
> Because the sub-allocation policy references the AW policy, the
> sub-allocation policy also needs to be updated. This proposal
> suggests that the maximum sub-allocation should be kept at /20 (4096
> IPv4 addresses).
>
> You can find the full proposal at:
>
>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2006-07.html
>
>
> We encourage you to review this policy proposal and send your comments
> to <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>.
>
> Regards
>
> Filiz Yilmaz
> RIPE NCC
> Policy Development Officer
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20061019/9dac2433/attachment.html>