On Thu, Aug 15, 2024 at 11:26 AM Gerry George <[email protected]> wrote: > I’d argue that a more reasonable approach to this would be to eliminate the > nibble boundary allocation policy at a certain threshold - (i.e. an > organization > needing two /20s gets a /19, not a /16). This would allow organizations that > demonstrate that need to still get their allocations, while avoiding large > amounts of stranded resources that the current policy would impose.
Hi Gerry, I recall asking for a proponent of shorter-than-/20 to produce a (fictitious) justification for a /19 that we could evaluate as a group and reach consensus that yeah, if that request came through backed by real infrastructure, it was not so wasteful as to be subjectively offensive. No one took me up on it. If we can't, as a group, imagine such a large yet reasonable allocation, why should we allow it? If I didn't ask, I'm asking now. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
