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

Hi,

this thread has drifted quite far, but a few comments need to be made:

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 04:33:29PM +0200, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
> 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):

It definitely is way outside the scope of this proposal.  Bringing back
needs based allocation, removing the last-/8 policy, or changing the
size of the last-/8 allocation would have to be a separate policy proposal.

>  - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order
>  to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice-
>  lying about "needs" and "use")

Actually if you go back and actually read the discussion concerning that
proposal, it has been abolished because there is nothing left to allocate
based on "need" - if I need a /8, and you need a /20, we both get a /22,
so where's the benefit in having a complex system that will lead to the
same result anyway, no matter how big your need is?

>  - 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.

In which way has the situation changed, except that we're now very close
to *3* RIRs having run out of IPv4 addresses (and/or are in the "last /8"
phase)?  Has someone discovered a magic store of IPv4 addresses that we
can use to return to the time of large pools and /10 allocations to big
telcos?

I'm sure you understand that there's thousands of RIPE LIRs out there that
*all* want IPv4 space - so if you loosen up the policy too far, RIPE NCC
will dry out in a few months, and nothing will be left.  This is what ARIN
(consciously) did, not having a soft-landing / last-/8 policy, and we 
decided that we want to have a long tail of "some leftover bits of addresses
to hand to newcomers in the market, 5 or 10 years hence".

Gert Doering
        -- APWG chair
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20150423/86735850/attachment.sig>