Colleagues, I'd say /21 with review of the policy scheduled within two years.
Regards, Dominik -----Original Message----- From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-boun...@ripe.net] On Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN Sent: 02 November 2015 16:23 To: Riccardo Gori <rg...@wirem.net>; address-policy-wg@ripe.net Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 On Mon, Nov 2, 2015, at 16:04, Riccardo Gori wrote: > It does not contain any /something limit (as example /20) already > administered by the requesting LIR. > I would add some text as follows: > [...] > 3. The LIR has not reached an address space equivalent to /20 in its > registry [...] IF that is to be done, I'd say that the acceptable limit (from several points of view) may be more /21 rather than /22, i.e. only real new entrants (after 09/2012). That could also be spelled this way. /20 was the initial idea too, but left aside for the first version. Any other optinion on this (other than "global no" or "no, no, no") ? -- Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN fr.ccs
