[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce] 2012-04 New Draft Document Published (PI Assignments from the last /8)

On 10/09/2012 13:39, Erik Bais wrote:
> I would like to state that I'm not in favor of this policy change.
> 
> Obviously it is very appealing to open up the last /8 also for end-user
> assignments, even with the additions of limiting only to a /24 max.
> 
> But I'm afraid that there will be a run on the last possible addresses
> and that there won't be any IP space left for new LIR's if they require
> it.  ( Do I even dare to state anything about routing table explosion
> because of it ? )

Eric,

thanks for your comments on this proposal.

Your argument is based on the assertion that the IP addressing requirements
of a LIR are more important than the requirements of an End User.  This
point could be argued endlessly - in fact I'd argue that they could be
perceived as important in some respects.

However your conclusion is that the requirements of End Users are
sufficiently insignificant compared to new LIR requirements, that they do
not deserve any IPv4 addresses at all from what's left in the pot.

This is an extraordinarily discriminatory position.

In fact I find it not just to be unfair, but dramatically anti- competitive
as the LIRs could be seen as harbouring the remaining IPv4 address space
for members of their own club.

The counter-argument that anyone can become a LIR is weak because it will
enforce that all such organisations are allocated a /22 instead of a /24
regardless of whether they actually need it or not.  I would argue that we
are very likely to see huge numbers of applications for new LIR membership
from spurious organisations after the imminent depletion, which will cause
run-out even faster than with 2012-04.

A run on address space is inevitable no matter what happens, and we will
reach the end of the barrel very shortly indeed.  This proposal will not
cause a run any more than what is going to happen anyway.

It's also important to realise that the term "last /8" is now jargon for
"all IPv4 addresses which the RIPE NCC handles after the exhaustion of the
second last /8".  In other words, it explicitly includes all IP addresses
which are recovered by the RIPE NCC in future.

By rejecting this proposal, this discrimination against End User
requirements will be permanently enshrined in RIPE policy and that they
won't get the opportunity to apply for reclaimed address space in future.
Again, I find this to compound the implicit unfairness of excluding them in
the first place.

Nick