[address-policy-wg] 2011-03 New Policy Proposal (Post-depletion IPv4 address recycling)

On Mon, 23 May 2011, Daniel Suchy wrote:

> On 05/23/2011 12:01 PM, Remco Van Mook wrote:
>> If you allow me to summarize: it is your opinion that the community is
>> better off with the RIPE NCC not handing out address space it has
>> available? I would have to politely disagree.
> RIPE NCC can handle returned address space in similar way, as it does
> today, I mentioned that. Why not to assign /21, /20 to someone, if RIPE
> NCC can (=has other space than last /8)? Normal allocations with
> standard policy can be processed, instead of carving last /8. There're
> still other limitations in place - like 6/3month address plans etc.
> Reserve in last /8 is - in my oppinion - large enough. There's no reason
> to apply last /8 policy to other address space - this will really only
> hold available addresses in RIPE NCC without being really used (as last
> /8 policy is very restrictive).
>
>> I agree that aggregation is a concern as well as filtering, but given that
>> we're appending this address space to the end of the final /8 in
>> allocation terms, this space would only be (re)allocated after we've run
>> out of the final /8; that is, after some 16,000 /22s have been handed out.
>> What the default free zone will look like is anybody's guess, but I've got
>> a pint saying that handing out /22s from other /8s is unlikely to make it
>> a lot worse, even more so for the assorted snippets of address space that
>> come after that.
> Based on current numbers of current/new members of RIPE NCC, this will
> hapen sometimes after 12-18 years? If this will hapen really. In last
> /8, there's only one /22 per LIR, so it's quite easy calculation. Also I
> assume, that some LIRs will not apply for their last /22.
>
>> If people run filters based on RIPE documents (or any other source for
>> that matter), they're well advised to have a procedure in place to keep
>> those filters up to date.
> That's not argument for making these these things harder compared to
> current convetions.

I guess this depends on what we want to happen. If we think it's about 
time to "act now" on IPv6 this is probably the right thing. As I wrote 
earlier, once we enter the "final /8 stage" any remaning and/or returned 
IPv4 space will be locked. That means it will be complete meningless to 
return any space to the RIPE NCC and we will surely see quite a bit of 
black market tradning instead.

So Daniel has got a point but as Gert pointed out it might be outside the 
scope of this proposal.

Regards,

Daniel Stolpe

_________________________________________________________________________________
Daniel Stolpe           Tel:  08 - 688 11 81                   stolpe at resilans.se
Resilans AB             Fax:  08 - 55 00 21 63            http://www.resilans.se/
Box 13 054							      556741-1193
103 02 Stockholm