I support those changes. Arguments are the same as Cathy gives. WBR, Dmitry Menzulskiy DM3740-RIPE ----- ��: Dmitriy V Menzulskiy/BeeLine ��: 19.10.2006 18:30 ----- <tt>address-policy-wg-admin@ripe.net �� 19.10.2006 15:26:57: > > 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</tt> <tt>> </tt> <tt>> On 10/18/06, Filiz Yilmaz < filiz@ripe.net> wrote:</tt> <tt>> 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@ripe.net>. > > Regards > > Filiz Yilmaz > RIPE NCC > Policy Development Officer > </tt>