Use of final /8

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

Summary of Proposal:

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

Policy text

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

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

1. New LIRs
A new LIR is defined as being an organisation which has recently become a member of the RIPE NCC but has yet to be assigned or allocated any IPv4 address space.

Each new LIR will receive IPv4 addresses which they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services to ensure their full presence on the IPv4 Internet during the transition phase to IPv6. Following will apply to them:

1. Each new LIR may receive address space according to the minimum allocation size in effect at time of allocation in RIPE region. If the minimum allocation were to reduce in size in future, the allocation made under this policy should also be reduced to match.
2. Each new LIR may receive only an allocation at the minimum allocation size even if their needs justify a larger allocation block.
3. New LIRs may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the current allocation policy in effect at the time in RIPE region.

2. Existing LIRs
An existing LIR is defined as being an organisation that has already been assigned or allocated IPv4 address space by the RIPE NCC.

It is proposed that each existing LIR may request and receive only a single allocation from the remaining /8 worth of address space:

1. Each existing LIR may receive address space according to the minimum allocation size in effect at time of allocation in the RIPE region. If the minimum allocation were to reduce in size in future, the allocation made under this policy should also be reduced to match.
2. Each existing LIR may receive only an allocation at the minimum allocation size even if their needs justify a larger allocation block.
3. Each existing LIR may apply for and receive this allocation once they meet the criteria to receive IPv4 address space according to the current allocation policy in effect at the time in RIPE region.

This ensures that each existing LIR receives routable IPv4 addresses that they can use for supporting legacy IPv4 services during the transition phase to IPv6. Existing LIRs cannot receive resources under this section of the policy if they have already received resources under section “1. New LIRs” above.

3. 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 allocated to LIRs, it returns to the pool to be distributed as per clauses 1. and 2.

Rationale:

• 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 consuming 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.

• Some organisations may believe and can demonstrate that their IPv4 requirements are larger than the minimum allocation size 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 author accepts that it is hard to ensure complete compliance.