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

Hello Michael,

> The point is that if RIPE changes the policy, it has to do so in
> a way that does not convert the bad luck of running out of IPv4,
> into selective discrimination.

Which is why I proposed to reserve address space for initial  
allocations. Existing LIRs already have their initial allocation, new  
LIRs can get a (much smaller) initial allocation. And because by that  
time there will be no IPv4 addresses for subsequent allocations  
everybody will have to deal with the shortage. New LIRs will never get  
as much addresses as existing LIRs, but I think this is as fair as we  
can make it: at least give new LIRs an opportunity to participate in  
the IPv4 internet.

What I find discriminating is for existing LIRs to use up all IPv4  
addresses, which forces new LIRs to but IPv4 address space or services  
from them. Reserving address space for those initial allocations won't  
make a real difference for existing LIRs (RIPE NCC allocates about 3 / 
8's a year, so if we set aside (for example) a /12 for initial  
allocations that would mean we run out one week earlier). It will  
however give new LIRs the possibility to participate in the IPv4  
internet, show to regulators that we are not anti-competitive, etc.

Just to be clear: I don't want to make it 'easy' for new LIRs to get  
address space. Everybody will suffer equally when we run out of IPv4.  
Giving a /24 as initial allocation is still 8 times as small as the  
current minimum allocation size so it won't be easy for new LIRs. They  
will never get a /21 minimum allocation as we are used to currently,  
but at least they have some address space to work with. That way it  
will just be hard for them, instead of impossible.

- Sander