[address-policy-wg] 2007-06: New Policy Proposal (Global Policy for the Allocationof the Remaining IPv4 Address Space)

Per,

On Jul 30, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Per Heldal wrote:
> If we are to deviate from the principle of "documented need", I  
> believe
> it is better to define a last pool of /8s (e.g. 15) that is to be  
> split
> among the RIRs according to their consumption.

We (actually, Leo) did this exercise internally a while ago.  It is a  
bit challenging to come up with a single answer as the outcome  
greatly depends on the starting conditions.  That is, consumption is  
quite non-linear and if you choose a recent starting point you'll get  
a different answer than if you choose a historical starting point.   
This is further complicated by the fact that it is highly unlikely  
that current consumption patterns will remain constant over the  
lifetime of the IPv4 free pool.  Of course, we can always close our  
eyes and pick numbers at semi-random...

>> I believe that if we approved this policy each RIR
>> could discussed more conservative policies and hopefully the RIR pool
>> will never run out (check the "slow landing" proposal at ARIN as an
>> example).
>
> Suggestions like the "soft landing" proposal in ARIN amount to little
> more than wishful thinking. Policy-changes may limit the number of
> smaller blocks and thus affect routing-table-growth. The volume of
> address-consumption OTOH is tied to growth in the broadband-market on
> which changes to allocation policies have minimal effect -- unless you
> go as far as to introduce some form of rationing.

Um.  "Soft Landing" is a form of rationing.  It increases the  
requirements for obtaining space as the free pool diminishes, making  
it harder and harder to obtain new blocks from the registry.  In  
theory, the end effect would be to encourage increased efficiency in  
the use of IPv4 address space, even amongst broadband providers.

Rgds,
-drc