[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Proposal to lower the minimum allocation size
> - However, we have a suggestion. It would be good if we tighten the criteria of portable assignment to get rid of unhonest PI. It's should be " Portable assignment is only for end-user. ISPs are forced to apply for portable allocation". In recent Routing table reports, the total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations rearched 57860
-->
I agree. ISPs should be eligible to receive allocations after we lower
the size, so I assume they no longer have needs for portable
assignments.
If a substantial number of ISPs are unable to receive allocations,
then this implies that the allocation criteria is too strict, and we
should review the allocation policy.
My concern is that if we allow portable assignments to ISPs as well,
the distinction betweeen allocation and portable assignments becomes
very vague and there will be no point in having two seperate policies.
> Let's discuss the size of minimum allocation:
> - RIRs should have similar size of minimum allocation. Therefore, we would have the same filter size
> - On the other hand, many ISPs are qualified to be initially allocated, especially when we losen the criteria but they have minor development rate. /20 block initially allocated to them is a waste reservation.
-->At least in the case of Japan, over 85% of LIRs utilize /20 or
more, so the waste is not a big issue.
How about in other countries?
Izumi
JPNIC
