[address-policy-wg] About the /22 allocation limitation

* Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca

> Lets think the reserved pool grows enought. Lets say reserved pool gets
> arround a /10.

In likelihood this will happen really soon, when the IANA Recovered IPv4
Pool is activated the RIPE NCC will receive (at least) 3.83M addresses,
which is enough to make the total non-185/8 space held by the NCC to
exceed a /10.

I doubt that subsequent allocations from the IANA Recovered IPv4 Pool
will be of the same scale, though. Except for this exceptional one-time
event, I expect that the NCC's total pool (returned/reserved + 185/8)
will gradually diminish, but last for several years before emptying
completely. Which is what we wanted to accomplish in the first place.

> There should be a policy that says:
> [...] When the reserved pool reachs the number of "N" millions of IP
> [...] a LIR that prove they need the space, will recieve a /X space

[...]

> I didnt say anything about minimum or maximum allocation, and if I
> said something that mean that, sorry.

What do you mean by «a /X», if it isn't a maximum allocation limit?

> Lets give the chance not only to new LIRs but everyone to get more IP
> space, IF THEY REALLY PROVE the need.

Let's say that we do make a new "reserved" pool that gets activated for
allocation when it contains a /10, as you suggest over. I can easily
think of a dozen LIRs in the RIPE region who in all likelihood have
absolutely no problems at all to "REALLY PROVE" that they need that
entire /10 (and more). After all, they've had over 18 months to gather
up all that unmet need. So how do you solve determining who actually
will get anything from the pool? First come, first serve? Random draw?
Something else entirely?

>> It's IPv4 that is doomed, and that goes equally for old LIRs as well as
>> new LIRs. I'm sure the community would enthusiastically give more IPv4
>> space to little new LIRs if that space existed, but it doesn't, and so
>> it is impossible to give it. There is simply no good option available
>> to us:
> No its not equals. You have mooooooore game with 1 millions address than
> 1 thousand address.

Not necessarily. If that LIR has already delegated all of those 1M
addresses on to its End Users, then that LIR has 0 addresses available
for new deployments. Just like a newly-formed LIR with no allocations.
Both are stuck, with no way to grow their businesses.

You could even argue that the new LIR might have somewhat of a
competitive advantage over the old one when it comes to further growth.
They will both get a final /22, but the old LIR will probably have IPv4
inertia and find it difficult to adjust their business model and
infrastructure from a situation where IPv4 was plentiful to one where it
is scarce; while the new LIR might be working with a green-field
deployment and have a much better chance to build its infrastructure in
a way that does not rely too much on IPv4, and thus be able to make much
better use of the /22 than the old LIR can.

Tore