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

On 17.09.2012 05:27, Randy Bush wrote:
> gedanken experiment
>
>    o cut last/8 allocations to lirs back to /24
Most likely too small to do anything meaningful with ...

Anyway, I've been wondering for a while - how many new ISPs (or LIRs, 
for that matter) have been founded over the last - say - 2 years? Given 
the technical requirements as far as performance and bandwidths go, and 
the low end user prices for Internet connectivity, I don't see how there 
are any feasible business models to start an ISP business nowadays... 
this poses the question whether saving v4 addresses for new ISPs/LIRs is 
even relevant ...
>    o give end sites /29s from a specific block.  lets them nat.
Apart from uses like VPN transfer networks (for which a /29 should be 
plenty sufficient in many cases, though possibly too smal in some 
special situations with many servers), this isn't sufficient for the 
predominant use, multi-homing. Question is - as others have already 
stated - whether multi-homing is a valid reason for getting v4 addresses 
in this phase ...

I reckon if the policy should be altered to allow v4PI assignments, 
should there be a quota between PI and LIR assignments? I've not read up 
on the amount of reserved space for future uses, but say that's 20%, 
should there be a 4:1 ratio between PA and PI, eg. 64% PA and 16% PI? 
Also, should there be some sort of regulation as to what businesses 
ought to be allowed to receive LIR status? Otherwise, regular end 
customers with enough money (or enough despair) could chose to become an 
LIR, wasting more space than they would getting (currently unavailble) 
PI space, with only one company profiting from /22, while "real" LIRs 
might not get anything at some point, with dozens or hundreds of end 
customers not being able to get v4 addresses ...

-garry