[ppml] Policy to help the little guys

[David Williamson]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:31:16PM -0700, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> What about shifting the minimum allocation size?  Should we reopen that 
> discussion and consider /24 or /23 instead of /22?

I'd be in favor of that.  I still think there's a lot of demand for
multi-homed sites that have a legitimate need for PI.  Forcing small
multi-homed sites to lie to get PI space seems less than ideal given
the constraints of IPv4 availability.  If you can get a PA /24 for
multi-homing, and anyone can, why can't you get PI?  It's not like it's
going to pollute the routing table any more than the PA /24.  The only
"advantage" to the PA /24 is that you get stuck with one of your
upstreams, whether you like it or not.  I'll also note that the other
RIRs already have made this shift.  

Not encouraging more efficient allocations strikes me as very odd.

-David