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

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Tore Anderson wrote:

> 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.

Looking at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ (figure 28e) the RIPE 
allocation rate was around 2-3 /8:s per year at the time of the last /8 
policy kicked into effect, so the ~18 million addresses would be gone in a 
matter of days, at the same rate that LIRs could create applications and 
send them in.

So apart from a few people, most of us agree that any attempt at changing 
policy in the more liberal direction is doomed to fail miserably.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se