You're looking at an older or unpublished version: 1

Allocations from the last /8

Summary of Proposal:

This proposal describes how the RIPE NCC should distribute address space from its last /8 worth of IPv4 address space at the time of total depletion of the IANA free pool.

Policy Text:

New:

[Following text is to appear in the RIPE Policy document, IPv4 Address Allocation and Assignment Policies for the RIPE NCC Service Region (ripe-492) if the proposal reaches consensus.]

Allocations from the last /8

The distribution of the last /8 held by the RIPE NCC will be done as follows:

1. Allocations for LIRs from the last /8

On application for IPv4 resources when the RIPE NCC is holding the equivalent of a /8 or less of IPv4 address space, LIRs will receive IPv4 addresses according to the following:

    1. LIRs may only receive one allocation from this /8. The size of the allocation made under this policy will be no larger than a /22.
    2. LIRs receive at most a /22, even if their needs justify a larger allocation.
    3. LIRs may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the allocation policy in effect in the RIPE NCC service region at the time of application.
    4. Allocations will only be made to LIRs if they have already received an IPv6 allocation from an upstream LIR or the RIPE NCC.

2. Unforeseen circumstances

A /16 will be held in reserve for some future uses, as yet unforeseen. The Internet is a disruptive technology and we cannot predict what might happen. Therefore it is prudent to keep a /16 in reserve, just in case some future requirement makes a demand of it.

In the event that this /16 remains unused in the time the remaining /8 covered by this policy has been distributed, it returns to the pool to be distributed as per clause 1.

Rationale:

a. Arguments supporting the proposal

The final /8 worth of address space will have a special policy applicable to it in the RIPE region. This avoids the risk of one or a few organisations onsuming the entire block with a well crafted and fully justified resource application. The proposal attempts to ensure that no organisation lacks real routable IPv4 address space during the coming transition to IPv6.

b. Arguments Opposing the Proposal

Some organisations may believe and can demonstrate that their IPv4 requirements are larger than the minimum allocation or assignment sizes in RIPE region. But this final /8 is not intended as a solution to the growth needs of a few organisations, but for assisting with the transition from IPv4 to IPv6.

Some organisations may set up multiple LIR registrations in an effort to get more address space than proposed. The RIPE NCC must be vigilant regarding these, but the authors accept that it is hard to ensure complete compliance.