[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

Hello,

If you ask me; the requests should be processed like now, with 3
differences:
- IF someone/a company has IPv4 address space already they need to prove
that they use it in the right way (1 IP/VPS or 2 IP/server or 1 IP/NIC or 1
IP/SSL certificate for example sounds reasonable for me). If this is not the
case (they use more IPv4 addresses for this) the new allocation will be
refused.
- Someone/a company without IPv4 address space already should get only a /24
or a /23, after they have proven to use this correctly (see above) they
could request another range.
- The biggest range someone can get with any new request should be limited
to a /22.

Requests should be processed at a first-come-first-serve base (where
possible) if you ask me.

With kind regards,

Mark Scholten

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Sander Steffann
Sent: zondag 5 juli 2009 11:13
To: Address Policy Working Group
Subject: [address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

Hello WG,

I want to continue the discussion about the Final /8 proposals  
(2008-06 and 2009-04). The responses to my last question ("Do we (this  
working group) want to put IPv6 related requirements in the policy?")  
were 100% negative: We don't want IPv6 related requirements in the  
Final /8 policy.

The next question is about the amount of addresses someone can get  
from the Final /8. I think we have a number of options here:
a) Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block, as described in  
2008-06
b) All requests are downscaled by a certain factor, as described in  
2009-04
c) We place a limit on the amount of addresses that can be requested  
per time slot (year?)

I think it is important to think about new companies. They will very  
probably require some IPv4 address space during the transition from  
IPv4 to IPv6. I think the whole community will be in a lot of trouble  
if we make a policy that makes it impossible for new entrants to  
participate in a dual-stack world.

Once we have discussed this basic issue I'll steer the discussion back  
to the other differences between the proposals. Please keep the  
discussion on this topic for now.

Thank you,
Sander Steffann
APWG co-chair