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

On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 13:43 +0200, Sander Steffann wrote:
> > All that is required for that is to
> > reserve a relatively small block from which everyone who qualify for
> > a /32 or larger PA v6-block gets for example a /22 v4-block if they  
> > have
> > no prior v4 allocation.
> 
> Such a policy would solve my main concern. I would remove the  
> reference to IPv6 because earlier parts of this discussion showed that  
> we don't want to put IPv6 requirements in IPv4 policy. I think just  
> reserving a block like this for initial allocations would be enough.

Some people think the block required for this purpose should be made as
small as possible. The intention with these assignments is to provide
addresses for transition-services. Yet, we can't expect the NCC to judge
an applicants intentions. Thus, my suggestion above restricts the
handouts to new PA-holders only. I guess someone from the NCC can dig
out the exact annual ratio of PI to PA blocks (1st assignment to new
LIRs only), but just judging by the unfiltered PA/PI ratio suggest that
the difference is significant.

Leaving an opening for allocations to PI-holders requires a bigger
v4-block to be reserved. I personally have no strong preference for
either alternative. It was just an attempt at a variation of what's been
suggested before.


//per