[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 2

Hello,

> The next question is about the amount of addresses someone can get  
> from the Final /8. I think we have a number of options here:
> a) Everyone gets one (and only one) fixed size block, as described in  
> 2008-06

IMHO, the "one size fits all" approach doesn't seem the right way to go. The 
rationale in the original proposal was clearly directed towards IPv6 
deployment and maintaining interconnection to the IPv4 world in this szenario. 
Even if I think, this is a sensible approach, we agreed 100%, that we don't 
want IPv6 related requirements in this proposal (and let me add, neither 
explicit nor implicit).

> b) All requests are downscaled by a certain factor, as described in  
> 2009-04

This sounds sensible to me. A downsscaling factor of 64 will give enough 
address space to stay in the allocation business for some (small "some) years.

Newcomers are not discriminated, as it seems easier to me for a newcomer to 
deploy multiplexing techniques than for an established operator with a large 
legacy network. So the goal to keep newcomers in the game is achieved as well 
(and reinforced by the proposed argument (d) below).

> c) We place a limit on the amount of addresses that can be requested  
> per time slot (year?)

and/or

(d) upon further allocation requests, the LIR has to demonstrate IP use under 
the downscaling paradigm (e.g., some kind of multiplexing technology is 
deployed for the last allocation).

Regards,
	Andreas
-- 

--
Andreas Schachtner

afs Holding GmbH
communication technologies & solutions
http://afs-com.de/

Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner
HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20090705/21cc7e28/attachment.sig>