[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09

David Conrad wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> On May 30, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>> If both policies were introduced then I can easily
>> envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts
>> to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower
>> to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the
>> purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03.  The worse case
>> scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they
>> may see very little of that last /8.
> 
> Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just been rejected by 
> RIPE-NCC because they have no more address space to hand out whereas 
> AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8.
> 
> I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen?

I suspect that any answer I would give to such a question would
be very non-standard due to the research and education space in
which I work and given that our core network has been dual stacked
for some years and we're doing everything we can to educate our
clients and extend the v6 rollout as quickly as possible.  So the
scenario above is very unlikely to come to pass.

In a different organisation the answer may well be "get addresses
from anywhere we can" leading to situations under potential market
conditions or an attempt to make oneself a legitimate customer of
a different RIR, but both are ultimately exercises in holding back
the tide for a little while.  2007-09 is much the same thing, in
my eyes, while 2008-03 allows for a little more vision of when
things are going to happen and possibly even a reduction of the
inevitable panic.

And considering some of the issues over PI space contracts and
ERX addresses and the like that's going on right now, I dread
to think what's going to happen if the space for which an
organisation or LIR is contracting actually comes from that RIR
over there via an RIR which is, in fact, a LIR.

Brian.