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

> On 21 Oct 2015, at 4:48 PM, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> Op 20 okt. 2015, om 23:57 heeft Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015, at 20:00, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> what is it that people do not understand about "gone, no more, we're
>>> out, ...?"
>> 
>> Because it's NOT. Not yet. Not in RIPE-land, not in APNIC-land, not even
>> in LACNIC-land. Not to mention AfriNIC-land.
> 
> The current policy is "we reserved some address space so that new entrants are not blocked from the market". I have seen many people interpret that as "we have not yet run out". For all practical purposes we *have* run out. What we have left is not normal address distribution anymore but a "special" situation. Business-as-usual with IPv4 doesn't exist anymore. To be blunt I think that "we haven't run out" is a extremely misguided (a.k.a. delusional) viewpoint...

+1
> 
> The point of this policy proposal is to see whether we can optimise this special situation by changing some of the parameters. To discuss if the results of changing i.e. "one /22" to "one /22 every 18 months" would help people while still providing an acceptable timeframe for being able to give addresses to new entrants.

How much of difference it will make for new entrants with this additional /22, and how much of potential impact by running out faster than we currently is will impact even future new entrants, I guess that are questions we really need to think about an answer.
> 
> But please realise that the normal IPv4 pool has run out and we are only discussing the usage of a reservation we made for special circumstances.
> 
> Cheers,
> Sander
> 
>