[address-policy-wg] Hoarding /22 out of 185/8

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

Hi,


> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015, at 11:25, Carlos Friacas wrote:
>> "Need" shouldn't be a criteria anymore, as we're in
>> "scarcity-mode"/"run-out" mode...
>
> "Need" should be a criteria again, exactly because we're in run-out
> mode.
> Again, "need" starts and ends with "if needed", *withOUT* the "as much
> as you need" part.

We agree to disagree :-)


>> One idea could be: «If the LIR doesn't have any other IPv4 allocation
>> made by the RIPE/NCC (before the run-out phase) besides the /22, if a
>> merge process is needed, the /22 is automatically returned to the pool».
>
> One pretty BAD idea. Not only the small players have a difficult time,
> but if some of them merge together, this makes sure they stay small.

They would need to remain a LIR in order to keep its /22.

What i don't like is the ability for someone to create a new LIR knowing 
it will be decommissioned later, because the only intent is to "catch" a 
/22.


> Renumbering is generally delicate for acess customers, and goes to very
> difficult (adminstratively and process-wise), sometimes limit impossible
> to running server and services plafroms.

Yes, if one organization feels it needs to run away from renumbering, the 
solution is to become a LIR and get/use its own /22. It will have to do 
it once, but it will be the last time, provided they always keep their 
LIR up & running.


> The idea is to prevent address hoarding in the first place, not to
> impose insane limitations on already running things.

Shouldn't be a problem if the LIR wasn't created with the original intent 
of closing it down after some time...


Cheers,
Carlos