[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation

Hi Tore,

> Also for the sake of the argument I'll make the assumption that the
> reserved pool is activated when it contains a /10, both because that's a
> figure you've mentioned earlier, and also because waiting until it
> contains a /9 will in all likelihood mean it will sit there inactive for
> years, and that won't help anyone either.
> 
> First, let's try with a max allocation size of /22. Then there would be
> 4096 /22s in the pool, enough for all of the LIRs you want us to take
> care of.

Something about this worries me. I am afraid we will end up with more 'types' of LIRs:
- the old ones that could request whatever they needed
- the ones that started just before runout who have one /21 and one /22
- the first 4096 that started just after runout who have two /22s
- the later ones that have one /22

The first 4096 of last category could potentially get another /22 when/if the pool reaches a /10 again, but as you say this will take years.

This doesn't feel right. If we make a policy to give more IPv4 addresses to the LIRs that only have one /22 then it should be:
- equal for all of them
- sustainable for a long time

If we can do this then I don't see a problem, but in order to do this the returned pool has to be able to grow to (almost) a /8 because otherwise we won't be able to give every LIR with one /22 their second /22. And that will create unfairness again...

Cheers,
Sander