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

On Mon, Sep 14, 2015, at 11:09, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * "Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN" <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net>
> > I take "broken" as "painful and far enough from exhaustion", so in need
> > of a fix.
> 
> Is there any urgency in getting closer to full exhaustion (i.e., no
> remaining austerity pool)? Is full exhaustion somehow less painful than
> the current status quo?
> 
> I guess we can look at the ARIN region, as they'll reach that point in
> the coming weeks. If that situation turns out to benefit their
> community somehow (like increasing the IPv6 deployment rate), I'm
> willing to be persuaded that we should open the floodgates and get rid
> of our austerity pool ASAP. I'm sceptical this will be the case, though.

I do think that it will push towards more serious IPv6 deployment
(beyond "get the /29 or /32, announce it into the GRT, deployment
successful").

> > 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).
> 
> And those three years we've delegated just shy of a /9:

Which makes the "austerity pool" (I would rather call it "waste pool")
available for about 5-6 more years.

> implemented, has pretty much dried up. There are currently only 163,481
> addresses remaining in that pool earmarked to be delegated to the NCC.

I am fully aware of that.

> In summary I don't think that we can open the faucet any more than it
> currently is if we want to be able to give IPv4 for new entrants in
> 2020.

If needed, we can revise things in another 3 years.

--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs