[address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

>> On 16 Nov 2015, at 09:02, David - ProfesionalHosting <david at profesionalhosting.es> wrote:
>>
>> OVERVIEW: Aims to allow LIRs to request an additional /22 IPv4
>> allocation from the RIPE NCC every 18 months. This would only
>> be possible if the LIR has not transferred any IPv4 address
>> space before.
>>
>> I support this measure. For us it is a big problem not to
>> request more / 22, we are an ISP, and it does not seem fair to
>> have to buy to get / 22 when others have to spare.
>
> I strongly oppose this measure.
>
> The NCC’s remaining v4 address space must be carefully conserved to
> ensure new LIRs in 5, 10, 20 year’s time can get a minimum
> allocation of IPv4. They will need some v4 space sp can reach
> IPv4-only equipment on what should be a mostly IPv6 Internet. If we
> burn through those remaining IPv4 addresses now, that will not be
> possible. This would be wrong. Very wrong.
>
> Any address policy for the last /8 which says “LIRs can get even
> more than their one off final /22 of IPv4” undermines that
> principle.
>
> Every LIR really has to accept that they have to wean themselves off
> IPv4 and have a serious approach to using IPv6. You’re going to have
> to do this at some point. You might as well do it now. IPv4
> allocations from the RIRs are not going to last forever. Changing
> the address policy for everyone just so you can continue with an
> IPv4-only networking approach for a few more months is both unfair
> and unwise.

Well said, Jim.  FWIW, I'm agreeing fully with what you say here.  The
current "last /8" policy is working the way it should.

Regards,

- Håvard