[address-policy-wg] Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations

* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN

> While some people agree with the concept, I'm not sure that the
> community in its whole (or majority) will agree with rolling-back
> several years of (already-established) policies. This definitely needs
> more discussion (maybe during a meeting):
>  - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order
>  to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice-
>  lying about "needs" and "use")
>  - soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation
>  changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to
>  mention that now we have some real-life experience.

Hello Radu-Adrian,

It was the «last /8 policy» itself that abolished needs-based
allocation, actually. After its implementation in autumn 2012, each LIR
gets only a single /22, regardless of its actual need (which could be
both larger or smaller than a /22). The rationale for this policy was
not at all to «legitimate lying», but to attempt to ensure that new
entrants would still be able to get hold of a little bit of IPv4 five
or maybe even ten years after depletion.

If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's
remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night.
The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC's pool are likely not
nearly enough to cover the latent unmet need that has been building in
the region since the «last /8 policy» was implemented.

Tore