[address-policy-wg] IPv4 waiting list policy

Dear colleagues,

In the Address Policy Working Group sessions at RIPE 83, I shared our 
observations regarding the IPv4 waiting list policy. [1]

The intent of this policy was to provide newcomers with a minimal amount 
of IPv4 space for as long as possible. However, about half of these 
allocations went to members that received several /24 allocations via 
multiple LIR accounts.

As there was interest in reviewing the policy at the RIPE Meeting, I 
would like to provide more detail on the provision of IPv4 allocations 
over the last two years and the current situation with the waiting list.

In the last 24 months, we provided 4,178 LIRs with a /24 allocation:
-    2,019 allocations (48%) went to members with a single LIR account
-    452 allocations (11%) went to members with 2-4 LIR accounts
-    298 allocations (7%) went to members with 5-9 LIR accounts and
-    1,409 allocations (34%) went to members with 10 or more LIR 
accounts (up to 33 /24 allocations to a single member)

This trend towards allocations to multiple LIR accounts has accelerated 
in the past six months. Between June and November 2021, only 24% of 
allocations went to members with a single LIR account, while 54% went to 
members with 10 or more accounts.

We see the same trend with the current waiting list. At the time of 
writing, we can see 327 requests for a /24 allocation:
-    83 (25%) are from members with a single LIR account
-    42 (13%) are from members with 2-4 LIRs accounts
-    45 (14%) are from members with 5-9 LIR accounts
-    157 (48%) are from members with 10 or more LIR accounts

Consequently, there is a significantly longer wait time for members with 
a single LIR account.

Looking at the current market prices for IPv4 in comparison to our 
membership fees, even a wait time of several months is acceptable for 
organisations that plan to transfer their allocation after the end of 
the holding period. Conversely, the long wait time will create 
uncertainty for real newcomers, especially if they can’t rely on 
IPv6-only networks.

I hope the WG finds this information useful for further discussion. If 
there is consensus to change the current situation, there are several 
approaches available – including a review of the waiting list policy and 
changing ‘per LIR’ to something else. Other approaches, such as a 
different charging scheme or changing the concept of multiple LIRs would 
need to be approved by the RIPE NCC membership.

Kind regards,
Marco Schmidt
Assistant Manager Registry Services
RIPE NCC

[1] https://ripe83.ripe.net/archives/video/642/