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

Hi,

Am 26.05.2011 um 10:52 schrieb Remco Van Mook:

> Hi Sascha,
> 
> 
> On 26-05-11 08:38, "Sascha Lenz" <slz at baycix.de> wrote:
>> 
>> Although i like to raise a little concern about the vague point 4 -
>> Insufficient address space :
>> Do we really want to tell the hostmasters/IPRAs to allocate 2x /25, 4x
>> /26 8x /27 ... and so on to LIRs in
>> the end?
> 
> Indeed that's what we tell them to, although it's not going to be quite so
> dramatic as you think. Point 4 is there to ensure that, even though the
> current final /8 policy explicitly states a single /22, RIPE NCC is not
> going to get stuck with a pile of /23s and smaller at the end of it all.
> 

I don't think it will be dramatic at all, otherwise i wouldn't support the
proposal ;-)

I just wasn't 100% sure that this wording is "what we want".

[...]
> that people will likely be happy to take anyway. I don't know what the
> current RIPE NCC stockpile of /25s and smaller is, but I think it's
> unlikely that at the point where we have to start using these for
> allocations, it's going to have a dramatic impact on the routing table (as
> I think it'll be a shambles at that point anyway).
> 

I'm actually satisfied with the point that we shouldn't see much of that
just because there shouldn't be much of this sub-/24 fragmentation anyways.
(But only the NCC can tell).

I was a bit blinded by the PI situation where we seem to have this kind
of fragmentation, but due to the allocation policy for PA space this shouldn't be
the case in the "PA /8s" in the first place.

So now i'd rather say this wording is a non-issue, nevermind.

> The final dozen or so LIRs to ever get IPv4 space from the RIPE NCC are
> going to have to deal with a mixed blessing.

*sigh*
Let's create a "Secret End-of-IPv4 WG" and announce "IPv4 rapture day" for 01.04.2012
or something :->

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind Regards

Sascha Lenz [SLZ-RIPE]
Senior System- & Network Architect