[address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"

On 06/04/2009 13:10, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
> attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly".
[...]
> PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-)

You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious about titles like this.  It
reminds me a little of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea insisting
on the word "democratic" being in their country's title, just to make sure 
that people are aware that it's a democracy - if they didn't already know.

I'm curious to understand how smaller LIRs will cope with these
requirements, particularly in light of Daniel's statement:

> I do not think a change [of minimum allocation size] is necessary here
> to address the objective of the proposal.

If you're a small ISP, with a low customer signon rate, how are you going 
to justify requesting a /21 for 3 months usage when a /21 might normally 
last you for a period of, say 6 months or a year or something?  I'm aware 
that the timescales are such that this period of enforced "fairness" won't 
be long.  However it strikes me that during this period, very small ISPs 
will end up facing a tough fight to justify a /21 when it's clear from 
their previous allocation records that their address burn rate is very low 
and that /21 is significantly more than they would require within the 
assignment period.

Nick