[address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

* "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>

> > > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22)
> > None of the above. My preference is to maintain the status quo - no
> > additional allocations. I do not quite see why we should change the
> > «last /8» policy which in my view has been quite successful (except for
> > the abuse that 2015-01 hopefully helps shut down).
> > 
> > If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
> > 
> > Unless we interpret «broke» to mean «exhausted». If so, c'est la vie.
> 
> I take "broken" as "painful and far enough from exhaustion", so in need
> of a fix.

Is there any urgency in getting closer to full exhaustion (i.e., no
remaining austerity pool)? Is full exhaustion somehow less painful than
the current status quo?

I guess we can look at the ARIN region, as they'll reach that point in
the coming weeks. If that situation turns out to benefit their
community somehow (like increasing the IPv6 deployment rate), I'm
willing to be persuaded that we should open the floodgates and get rid
of our austerity pool ASAP. I'm sceptical this will be the case, though.

> Reminder, we are 3 years (precisely) into the "last /8 IPocalypse", and
> RIPE still has more than 0.98 of a /8 available (more likely 0.99).

And those three years we've delegated just shy of a /9:

http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/plotend.png

Also, keep in mind that the IANA IPv4 Recovered Address Space pool,
which so far has provided the majority (~4M) of the "new" IPv4
addresses added to the austerity pool since the "last /8" policy was
implemented, has pretty much dried up. There are currently only 163,481
addresses remaining in that pool earmarked to be delegated to the NCC.

In summary I don't think that we can open the faucet any more than it
currently is if we want to be able to give IPv4 for new entrants in
2020.

Tore