[address-policy-wg] 2012-04 New Policy Proposal (PI Assignments from the last /8)

>> Alright then, for the sake of argument I'll oppose until I see some
>> convincing numbers. Back in the original last /8 discussion the rationale
>> for choosing a /22 was that it would get us about 16k final allocations,
>> or 1 for every NCC member and room for the membership to double in size.
>> Now, we have a number of new realities:
>
> So, when we hit the last /8 policy, all those who will then need IPv4 space 
> *must* become an LIR even if one /24 PI would fulfill entirely their need?

Or they give up on PI-plans and go to a LIR that can assign /24 and then
deaggregate and multihome. For the routing table growth this should not 
matter. I don't say that this would be fair but it is still a feasible
way to go. And of course, having PA or PI is still a difference especially
when it is about changing ISPs/associated LIRs.

-Sascha