[address-policy-wg] "needs", last /8, ... (Was: Transfer Requirements for IPv4 Allocations)

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 20:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> 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.

"Needs based" starts with "you don't get anything if you don't acutally
have a need for". I suppose that "selling" does not qualify as "need".
And "needs-based" doesn't imply "you get all that you need". For me an
"you get what is available *IF* you need something" (and some other
conditions) still counts as "needs-based".

The problem now (Elvis' policy is just one more proof) is that LIRs can
get space even if they don't actually need it: 
1. Ask for "your space", *promise* to make allocations, get "your"
space. 
2. [Optional] Bring up a new instace of "you" and go to step 1.

> 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.

Again, *more* liberal, does not mean *most* liberal. There's a huge gap
between the policies in force 13/09/2012 and before and the ones in
force 14/09/2012 and after. This what I would like to see fixed.
Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15
$/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ?