[address-policy-wg] The final /8 policy proposals, part 3.2

On 06/09/2009 23:10, Sander Steffann wrote:
> The problem with dropping all final /8 proposals except 2009-03 is that
> with 2009-03 the addresses will be used up as quickly as with the
> current policy. The addresses are requested in smaller blocks but there
> is no downscaling of the request size. Instead of requesting enough
> addresses for one year once per year organizations will request enough
> addresses for 6 months twice per year. The cumulative run rate will
> remain the same.

Yep, exactly.  As I mentioned, the only thing that changes is that the 
depletion curve becomes slightly smoother.  The run rate will still be the 
same.

> That means that the existing LIRs will use up all
> remaining IPv4 addresses in a few months, which is a very bad situation
> (IMHO/IANAL/etc).

Any plan to restrict address availability in order to make things last 
longer will involve discriminating in favour of some organisations and 
therefore discriminating against other organisations.  Given that the RIPE 
NCC operates a monopoly on useful ipv4 address allocation in the europe / 
middle east regions, discrimination is a very dangerous path to go down.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that choosing a system which 
implements discrimination in a way that the RIPE community and other 
interested stakeholders (including various regulatory authorities and the 
Dutch courts) would perceive as being "fair" is going to be very difficult.

And it will only be a temporary measure: depletion will happen, and then we 
will have to muddle on.

Nick