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

On 2015 Sep 14 (Mon) at 12:38:14 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
:On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:51, Peter Hessler wrote:
:
:> At my previous company, we joined RIPE as a LIR specifically because
:> there was no other way to get our own IPv4 address space.  As a smaller
:> orginazation, we NEEDED to get our own IPv4 space to be multi-homed _and_
:> to provide serivces to our users.
:
:This is pretty much the situation at my present company.
:

We had zero IPs.  And needed ANY, to provide services.  Even eight would
have been (barely) enough in an emergency.

Obviously, RIPE doesn't want to be giving out /29s to everyone that
needs to have their own space.

Does your service require substantially more than 1024 IPv4 addresses?
This adjustment would punish those that only need one, to handle cases
where people want more.


:> I support the existing policy, and are very concerned with any proposal
:> that would encourage faster exhaustion of the IPv4 space.
:> 
:> I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existing last /8
:> policy is painful for everyone.e
:
:It depends : if you need more than a /22 it is (very) painful, if you
:don't - it's not.

Since I was in that situation before, I am very concerned about the
smaller players.  For each /20 handed out, that is 4 small players that
are denied.  This, imho, would be a serious disservice to the community
at large.


:And don't forget that some people are still arguing that the last /8
:policy is to be used as a workaround until IPv6 becomes a useful option.
:Unfortunately, with the current stocks of available addresses, for a lot
:of people it doesn't work this way.
:
:--
:Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
:fr.ccs