[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 New Policy Proposal (Revision of Last /8 Allocation Criteria)

Dear, all.

I think it will be rightly to make progressive allocating depend on
current resource number and age of the LIR.

E.g.
LIR has /16 - he can ask /16 or equivalent
Or
First 18 months - /22, second 18 months months - /21, third 18 months - /20 etc.

I think it will supplement 2015-01 very good.

2015-10-20 17:46 GMT+03:00 Peter Hessler <phessler at theapt.org>:
> As I said during the WG at RIPE70, I fully support the existing /8
> policy because we *were* a late entrant to this Internet game[1], and it
> allowed a previous employer of mine to actually get _any_ announcable
> IPv4 space.
>
> While I feel sympathy for a business that has issues with not enough
> space, I have more sympathy for a business that has zero IP space and
> needs one.
>
> I am against this proposal.
>
>
> [1] Technically, the company had existed for a while with someone else's
> IP space, but for practical reasons, the company needed to have an
> allocation that belonged to it.
>
>
> On 2015 Oct 20 (Tue) at 16:27:21 +0200 (+0200), Remco van Mook wrote:
> :
> :Hi all,
> :
> :(no hats)
> :
> :I think this is a very bad idea*. The whole reason the final /8 policy looks the way it does (and is as far as I can see working *exactly* as intended) is so late entrants to this Internet game have a fair chance of establishing themselves without having to resort to commercial alternatives for IPv4 address space.
> :
> :For established LIRs, adding a trickle of additional address space probably won???t make a jot of a difference for their business and is likely not going to optimise the utilisation of those final scraps. The final /22 is *intended* to be used as a migration tool to IPv6, and is a crucial tool at that. I consider it a Very Good Thing Indeed that this region had the foresight that IPv6 won???t happen overnight once IPv4 runs out** and as long as we???re still talking about IPv6 adoption and not IPv4 deprecation, that tool should be available for as many organisations as possible.
> :
> :Finally, introducing this kind of change in policy at this point in time could well be argued as being anti-competitive and would end us up in a legal mess.
> :
> :Remco
> :
> :* So yes, dear chairs, please consider this e-mail to be against this proposal.
> :**Technically we have already run out a number of times, depending on your definition. None of those events has been earth-shaking, or induced major migrations to IPv6.
>



-- 
----------
Best regards,
Aleksey Bulgakov
Tel.: +7 (926)690-87-29