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

On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 08:40 +0200, Garry Glendown wrote:
> 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 ...

Any future upstart-ISP *NEED* IPv4 space to do CGN.  A small block is
sufficient.  Not having access to it is tricky w.r.t competition
legislation (the holders of IPv4 not selling some to new-comers, thus
blocking the market or whatever).

This isn't an argument pro or con PIv4-from-last-/8 in itself, unless
ISP operations are restricted to companies that are also LIRs, which,
well, it isn't.


For the record-keepers, I'm pro 2012-04.

In my opinion, a real solution to the above problem is not found in the
distribution model of an extremely limited amount of space (last /8).
And we're going there anyway (to the situation requiring the real
solution), I would just like us to get there sooner rather than later so
we can stop fumbling for non-solutions. It gets us IPv6 faster, is my
theory.  And it's of course debatable whether new-LIR cost for /22
contra PI-process for /24. The opportunistic PI-applications are
probably quite limited in volume?
  However, need for address space is somewhat in-elastic, like having
gas in your car when driving to work.  Many enterprises need it
regardless of its form and will easily pay 3.5 EUR/address for one or
several /22.

FFWD, plz.

Best,
M