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

> On 11 May 2016, at 14:52 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 09:47, Remco van Mook wrote:
> 
>> Again, you can't have it both ways. Current policy is not limited to
>> 185/8, so your proposal does have an impact. Actually 185/8 is more than
>> half gone by now (9571 allocations that I can see as of this morning) -
>> effectively this means the proposal wants over half of what remains in
>> the pool to get released to existing LIRs who've already received their
>> last /22. This cuts the lifespan of the pool for new entrants by more
>> than half, no?
> 
> No, because:
> - it will not be dedicated to "further allocations"
> - there are some extra conditions that makes a lot of people not to
> qualify
> - with the time passing, when 185/8 is over, the "first /22 from last
> /8" will start being allocated from the same space as "further
> allocations".
> 

OK, have it your way. Let's look at some numbers:

Available in 185/8 right now: ~ 6,950 /22s (1)
Available outside 185/8 right now: ~ 8,180 /22s (1)

New LIRs since January 2013: ~4,600 (2,3)
Budgeted membership growth for the rest of 2016: ~ 1,500 (2)

Before 2016 is out, around 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy to get another allocation.
Half the 'outside 185' pool will be gone by the end of this year.

Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool should last until early 2019.
At that point, another 4,000 existing LIRs will have qualified under the proposed policy for another /22 from the 'outside' pool. This pool is now empty as well.

So, under the new policy, it will be game over for all involved somewhere in early 2019.
The space you argue would be available for new entrants outside the '185 pool' was gone by the time it was needed.

Now let's look at the current policy. As of today, a total of about 15,130 /22s are available.
Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the available pool should last until 2025 (although the uncertainties are quite high if you extrapolate that far out)

So on one hand, we have a proposal that will be game over for all in about 3 years, or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.

At which point, IPv6 will have saved the world from global heating, or so they tell me.

The proposed policy has an impact (even the policy proposal itself says so (4)), and one that I strongly object to.

(if any of the NCC staff wants to verify my numbers, feel free to do so)

Sources:
1) https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
2) https://www.ripe.net/participate/meetings/gm/meetings/may-2016/supporting-documents/ripe-ncc-annual-report-2015
3) https://labs.ripe.net/statistics
4) https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2015-05

Remco
(no hats)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160511/bd62668b/attachment.sig>