[address-policy-wg] 2008-06 New Policy Proposal (Use of final /8)

Hi Michael,

michael.dillon at bt.com said the following on 16/10/08 01:42:
>>     http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2008-06.html
> 
> I wonder why this policy doesn't require the LIRs to have an
> IPv6 allocation before they apply for one of the last few
> IPv4 blocks? Is there any good reason to give out one of
> the last IPv4 blocks to an LIR which has no intention of
> deploying IPv6?

It's not clear to me what an organisation can do with a small amount of
IPv4 address space at the stage when this policy would come into play. I
think anyone who wants their business to carry on growing beyond the
run-out of the IANA IPv4 pool will already have IPv6 on their radar. I
suppose they could do NAT upon NAT upon NAT, but that doesn't sound like
a viable option to me. Hence opting for the softer option of simply
sharing out the remaining IPv4 /8 as per the proposal.

> It would also be nice if the policy had a clearer statement
> about this being a quota or rationing system.

Isn't it self evident? (LIR will only get the RIPE NCC minimum
allocation in force at the time the allocation is requested.)

philip
--