[address-policy-wg] Use of the Reserved IP Pool

On 2 Jul 2014, at 16:01, "Dpto. Datos Television Costa Blanca" <datos at tvt-datos.es> wrote:

> Are we going to keep 18.11 Million address for new LIRs?. Thats makes 17685 new lirs, way more than double as we have now...

Your reasoning is flawed. Each of the existing LIRs should be able to get their final /22 of v4. [I don't know or care how many have done that yet.] That accounts for about 10M of the 16M addresses in the NCC's last /8. It might even be less than that if some of those final /22s can come out of the space that's stuffed down the back of the NCC's sofa: eg any as yet unallocated blocks lurking in the other /8s that IANA issued years ago.

Worst case, there's 6M addresses remaining for ~6000 new LIRs. The NCC gets ~1000 new LIRs each year. So there's enough available v4 for at least 6 years assuming current behaviour continues. Seems enough. YMMV.

> sorry but that is ridiculous when we have LIRs with v4 allocation problems.

It's not. What *is* ridiculous IMO is making a request to change the current address policy without presenting any evidence why that policy is "broken" or how a change will "fix" whatever as yet unspecified problem needs fixing.

What exactly are those allocation problems? How will they be fixed by handing out more v4 space? Why can't they be fixed in other ways? eg IPv6 on everything.

You've not given any clear description of the problem. Saying vague things like "another /22 will give more than double time" are meaningless and unhelpful. Double what time? Why? And why double time, why not 10 times or 0.1 times? Where's the hard data? How come nobody else AFAICT is speaking up in support of your claims about allocation problems? If these problems were widespread and not just an isolated incident on your net, we should be hearing about them here. Your logic(?) here seems to be: "I'm going to stop smoking. But if you give me another packet of cigarettes I'll try to stop once they're done."

The basic facts are unchanged. To all intents and purposes there is no more v4. Further discussion of v4 allocation policy is therefore like two bald men arguing over a comb. No amount of tweaking is going to change the fact there is essentially no more v4 to allocate. Or that LIRs have to face up to the conseqences there is no more v4.

BTW it might be worth reading up on "the tragedy of the commons". You might also want to read the AP list archives and track the discussions which led to the adoption of the current policy.

As I said before, please present a sound and compelling case for changing the current policy. Simply saying "it doesn't help me/my network" or "I want to have more time to finish my IPv6 transition" is not enough. You seem to be saying "I want a pony and I want one now". Well, you're not going to get a pony until you can make a valid case why you must have one and why other pets or means of transport can't be substitutes for that pony. :-)

It would also help if your policy proposal clearly explained what an LIR could do with that extra /24 (say) that they couldn't already do with their final /22.