Just for clarity, are you considering that there may not be a need for shorter than /20 (which the evaluation exercise may determine or inform)?
On Thu, 15 Aug 2024, 4:26 pm William Herrin, <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
