[address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback request before engaging PDP

On 2015 Sep 14 (Mon) at 10:41:44 +0200 (+0200), Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:
:On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 10:03, Tore Anderson wrote:
:> > 3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22)
:> None of the above. My preference is to maintain the status quo - no
:> additional allocations. I do not quite see why we should change the
:> ??last /8?? policy which in my view has been quite successful (except for
:> the abuse that 2015-01 hopefully helps shut down).
:> 
:> If it ain't broke, don't fix it?
:> 
:> Unless we interpret ??broke?? to mean ??exhausted??. If so, c'est la vie.
:
:I take "broken" as "painful and far enough from exhaustion", so in need
:of a fix.
:Reminder, we are 3 years (precisely) into the "last /8 IPocalypse", and
:RIPE still has more than 0.98 of a /8 available (more likely 0.99).
:

At my previous company, we joined RIPE as a LIR specifically because
there was no other way to get our own IPv4 address space.  As a smaller
orginazation, we NEEDED to get our own IPv4 space to be multi-homed _and_
to provide serivces to our users.

I support the existing policy, and are very concerned with any proposal
that would encourage faster exhaustion of the IPv4 space.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the existing last /8
policy is painful for everyone.e