[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)

Hi,

> I do not believe there should be any distinction in policy based
> on a notional arbitrary "size" of LIR.

I almost agree with you, and it's the difference between a LIR that
holds a /21 and one that holds a /20 that's concerning me, but with
a feeling that an extra /22 may be of far more use to an LIR that
only holds a /22 to one that has, say, /14 of space.

The RIPE community has tried to walk a line between keeping IPv4
addresses back to ensure new entrants can join the market, and not
needlessly hoarding addresses.  The problem with that approach is
that we are forever doomed to make small adjustments to the policy
to keep that balance.

Give or take a bit of fluctuation when the IANA doles out a bit
more returned space, the pool of available IPv4 space the NCC has
is about the same now as it was three years ago, but we're about
half-way through 185/8:

https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph

Interestingly that graph doesn't appear to show much of a change
following the "multiple LIR" decision at the last meeting.

One /16 out of the final /8 is reserved for some future need, which
means that there are ~16,320 /22s in that block.  Let's say that's
in the same order of magniture as there are RIPE NCC members (12,830
at the end of 2015), but it's not a large breathing gap.

The NCC only has about 8,000 /22s outside 185/8 (at the moment),
so it all depends on what we want to classify as distributing them
fairly.  Another /22 for those that need it?  How much will that
pool continue to grow?  Is there a distribution of number of members
by address space they hold?

I'm also not sure about the "RIPEness" requirement.  It's an
interesting metric, but why three rather than four?  Should we be
encoding in policy a requirement that the NCC can change at will?
My personal opinion (working on a network that's offered IPv6 in
some way shape or form for 19 years), is that how I run my network
is my (or perhaps more importantly, my customers') business.

Still, at least it gives us something to talk about in Address
Policy.  Life would be boring otherwise.

Cheers,
Rob