[address-policy-wg] Is the final /8 the correct term ? - semi off track to the 2013-03 discussion..

* Erik Bais

> If you think that the pool which we have left is only the final /8 that
> we are working into currently (185.x.y.z) I think that the assumption is
> incorrect.

It is incorrect indeed. This is one of the rather confusing things about
our current policy that 2013-03 aims to improve. Under 2013-03, the
phase "the last /8" is completely purged from the policy language.

> There is still space left at IANA and once the first RIR reaches below
> their /9 mark of their final /8 … from my understanding it is , that
> also that space is going to be allocated to the RIR’s . 
> 
> Also there will be reclaimed space from 2007-01 and closing LIR’s
> (forced or by people their own decision) and also that space all goes
> back into the same pool.

Both these statements are correct.

> So you might need quite a couple of new entities to finish the pool as
> it is. . .

Correct. I gave some stats about this here:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/2013-July/008040.html
(near the bottom of the message).

> I’ve seen people say, why not open 20 new entities, setup a new LIR in
> each .. and you have 20 /22’s … Yes it is possible..
> 
> However I’ve noticed, there is little support to close this gap.. or the
> gap to be able to merge those 20 LIR’s .. or the option to be able to
> merge any LIR’s that already have their final /8 /22 provided.
> 
> Yes there will be people who play the system.. and with the bottom in
> sight, do we want to close all possible loopholes ?
> 
> If we decide, no we don’t want to close the loopholes, stop mentioning
> it in the discussion as a possible threat, because we already decided it
> is what it is and we are not going to close the gap.

Couldn't agree more. If there is a problem in today's policy that
continues to be a problem with 2013-03 - don't hold it against 2013-03
(but do feel free to submit a new proposal that fixes the problem).

Tore