[address-policy-wg] Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria

Guten Tag,
> Hi Garry,
>
>> What I could maybe live with would be if the additional addresses would
>> be available from a pool of returned IPv4 addresses only, and only to
>> those with available space smaller than /X (like, e.g. /20 or /19)
> What I am a bit worried about with a policy like that is the 'flapping' effect. At some point the pool of returned addresses runs out, so the NCC has to refuse requests. Then some more addresses are returned and the pool fill up a bit again, but the existing queue of requests will drain it again, etc.
>
> This might be implemented with a waiting list in a first-come-first-serve manner, but I expect that the time between sending in a request and getting to the top of the list might get to 'multiple years' quite quickly. So it would add a lot of complexity and still not help the newcomers.
>
> Stuff like this is why this working group decided a few years ago to put all the returned space into the main pool instead of making a new pool with a separate policy. If this working group wants to change that now we need to carefully consider the consequences and effects.
Yes it would create a waiting list - which is fine. For newcomers, we
still have the last/8 pool to "instantly" provide a /22, with sufficient
IPs (hopefully) to last until legacy v4 is finally disabled (I hope to
see that day ;) ). And still it allows for at least some growth for new
LIRs. As for the policy on how to distribute returned v4 blocks, I could
imagine something that includes factors like current allocation (i.e.
someone who only has a /22 gets into the waiting list before someone
with a larger allocation), number of IPs requested, time since last
allocation, whether the LIR has transfered IPs to another LIR, etc.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

Garry Glendown