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

Hi,

1. separate pool and APNIC-like distribution of additional blocks from
recoved space pool
2. no conditions for first /22 allocation, the goal is distribution of
resources and I can't see any benefit by adding this restriction
3.3.1 I don't think this one is a fair one: "LIR did not perform an outbound
transfer" 
I'm also thinking to prepare a proposal to remove current 24month transfer
wait period (or adjust it), IPs should be transferred easily for a better
utilization and really like to see the community feedback on your proposal. 

Regards,

Arash Naderpour

-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg [mailto:address-policy-wg-bounces at ripe.net] On
Behalf Of Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 5:17 PM
To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: [address-policy-wg] "last /8" allocation size - community feedback
request before engaging PDP

Hello everybody,

Back at RIPE70 Elvis and me presented some ideas about revising the IPv4
allocation policy (
https://ripe70.ripe.net/presentations/93-Last-_8-allocation-size.pdf )

Before submitting the proposal we would like to have some community feedback
on several aspects :

1. Separate pools or single pool
  a. have a "last /8 pool" which is 185.0.0.0/8 (strictly one /22 per
  LIR) and a "recovered space pool" containing all space received from
  IANA as "recovered and redistributed space" (for extra allocations) -
  APNIC-like separation of pools
  b. treat all addressing space available for allocation as a single
  pool

2. Conditions for allocation the first /22.
  - none (keep the situation as it is today - our preferred option)
  - something else (please detail)

3. Further allocation(s) (after the first /22)
 3.1 introduce some minimum delay after the last allocation : 12 months
(Elvis' favourite) ? 18 Months ? 24 Months (my favourite) ? More ? Less  ?
None ?
    3.1.1 Does that mean one can get a new allocation every X months
    (LACNIC-style) while the stock lasts ?
 3.2 Allocation size : /22 ? /23 ? variable depending on how much is
available at the time of allocation, max /22, min /24 (which does imply  a
little more policy text in order to detail this) ?
 3.3 Additional conditions 
   3.3.1 "LIR did not perform an outbound transfer" (do you think it
   would make sense to have this condition for the first allocation too)
   ?
   3.3.2 Other  conditions ???

We (me and Elvis) would like to hear your opinion (on the list or in
private) on those subjects in order to be able to submit a (we hope
stable) policy proposal before the end of the month.

The arguments for each change in the policy will come at that moment (with
the policy itself), and yes, we do have arguments for each option presented
here :)

Regards,
--
Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
fr.ccs