[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)

>>> however, if it touches returned all address space kind (PI/PA) and we
>>> don't really know what is going to happen - maybe it is reasonable to postopne
>>> the policy start point to let's say - 50 or 60% of last /8 usage ?
>>
>> what "problem" should postponing solve?
>> I support the proposal like it is.
> 
> i.e. if some company still need /24 PI for their purposes (non ISP
> company), after 2011-03 start, there will be no way to get PI any more
> (except from black market).

Noting first that this eventuality will also occur if 2011-03 is not adopted. I
think that this idea is in effect a no-op, because even if implementation of
2011-03 is postponed, any returned address space will still not be reallocated
using old policies.

I guess the intent of the suggestion though is to expand the scope of 2011-03
from one of clarification to one of reopening old allocation policies.

Quite apart from the author's stated reluctance to expand the scope in any way,
this would lead to a state, of unknown duration, where old allocation policies
are attempted to be fulfilled with a run rate that is vastly smaller than
demand, in parallel with the rationing procedures that are already set.

This is a situation that is explicitly avoided both by the current wording of
RIPE-509 and by the proposed changes of 2011-03. It is not a small change.

What we have with RIPE-509, and what 2011-03 does not damage imo, is a plan to
deal with runout in as clear and fair a manner as we can muster at this point.
There is a moment at which the rules change for everyone; there is no question
of some subsequently getting served with policies that cannot possibly be
applied to all.

We all feel the temptation to try to squeeze a little more out of the old way,
to try to redistribute what scraps we can find in some manner that will stave
off the consequences of runout for a few more people for a little longer. But
we've already optimised pretty much all the slack we can out of this; any
further changes must undermine clarity and fairness. We should resist the
temptation to try to optimise to an infinitesimal degree for the sake of a few
scraps.

And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre
pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.

I support 2011-03 with the wording proposed by its author.

Best regards,
Dave

-- 
Dave Wilson, Senior Network Engineer
HEAnet Limited, Ireland's Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin 1
Registered in Ireland, no 275301  tel: +353-1-660 9040  fax: +353-1-660 3666
web: http://www.heanet.ie/        H323 GDS:0035301101738 PGP: 1024D/C757ADA9