[address-policy-wg] A comment on 2008-03 & 2007-09

At 02:45 p.m. 30/05/2008, David Conrad wrote:
>Brian,
>
>On May 30, 2008, at 5:23 AM, Brian Nisbet wrote:
>>If both policies were introduced then I can easily
>>envisage a scenario where a bigger RIR uses up its /8, then starts
>>to nibble away at the remaining addresses of those who will be slower
>>to allocate their space, ie AfriNIC and LACNIC, thus defeating the
>>purpose of fairness that I see inherent in 2008-03.  The worse case
>>scenario here, for the less developed RIRs at least, is that they
>>may see very little of that last /8.
>
>Suppose we fast forward to ~2011 and you've just 
>been rejected by RIPE- NCC because they have no 
>more address space to hand out whereas
>AfriNIC and LACNIC both have (at least) a full /8.
>
>I'm curious: what do you think is going to happen?

David:

I am curious about other situation.
Suppose that IANA  allocates the last 2 /8s to 
the RIR A and one day later IANA receives a 
request from the RIR B that is running out of 
IPv4 addresses while the RIR A has (at least) 2 /8s.

What do you think is going to happen?

Raúl




>Thanks,
>-drc
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus 
>Database: 269.24.4/1474 - Release Date: 30/05/2008 07:44 a.m.