Hello,
As a co-author of prop-164 that is still open for discussion (with a revised
version to be submitted shortly), this proposal modifies sections that are
already being reviewed for potential changes. I invite the authors to review
the proposed changes in prop-164 (and the overlapping sections), and reach out
to me directly to discuss this further.
Now, having said that, there are several concerns that I have with this
proposal:
Policy currently does not require account holders to request allocations that
align with a nibble boundary. I believe that this is a good thing, as it means
that network operators do not need to request resources that they would not
otherwise not need.
Account holders already need to provide justification for any sized initial or
subsequent allocation. This alone (in my opinion) makes this proposal redundant.
It's acknowledged that one-bit doubling will remain the default method, and
that if someone wants more than doubling and requests an allocation that aligns
with a boundary, they must justify the request. What do the authors propose
should happen if an account holder requests an allocation that is more than
double, but does not align with a boundary (e.g. going from a /31 to a /29)? Is
it the intent that if an account holder requests more than double, it must
align with a boundary?
Not modifying a section of a policy, does not count as an advantage to a
proposal (see "Preserves existing policy scope" under Advantages/Disadvantages).
Further, prop-164 proposes reducing the minimum allocation size from a /32 to a
/36. Should prop-164 reach consensus and be implemented into policy, is it the
author's position that prop-170 would also apply to account holders who hold an
allocation between a /36 and /32?
In my view, this proposal adds a layer of complexity to allocations that is not
necessary. As it is currently written, I oppose this proposal as there are a
number of considerations not accounted for leaving room for interpretation as
well as adding unnecessary complexity. It already stands in current policy that
regardless of the request size the account holder must already provide
justification.
Regards,Christopher Hawker
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
