[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

Hi,

Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space,
I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to
very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried
to avoid.

In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against
the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be
available to new entrants for the next few years.

The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8,
is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we
shouldn't relax it.

For these reasons I don't support this proposal.

--
George

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown <garry at nethinks.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
> the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
> - I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
> "fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
> appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
> for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
> actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
> somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
> to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
> organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
> migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
> only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
> 1000 right now is definitely a pain!)
>
> So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
> the  /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
> certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:
>
> Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
> to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
> otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
> LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
> months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
> could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
> remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
> IPs most.
>
> Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
> entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
> the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.
>
> I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
> duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
> guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
> people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
> instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
> their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
> increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
> to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
> /22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
> off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
> cost or even turning a profit ...
>
> -garry
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151021/3fecb8b1/attachment.html>