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

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 21:53, Remco van Mook wrote:
> 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)

I'm OK with that.

> 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.

At the same time, 4472 LIRs do not have any IPv4 space. Is it possible
to know how many of them never requested it, 3.5 years after (or more
likely 2 years after all the restrictions have been lifted) ?
Do you really think all eligible LIRs will make the request within 6
months ?

> Based on an extrapolated growth rate of new members, the '185' pool
> should last until early 2019.

I see an average 12 months allocation rate of over 270 allocations/month
(and rising).
That leaves us (185/8 and recovered) 4 years 8 months (if allocation
rate remains steady - but it is increasing). 
For 185/8 only, that is (less than) 25.75 months, which is more like
mid-2018.
Continuing outside of 185/8, at the same rate, we get around
dec-2020/maybe jan-2021.
But that's missing the following:
 - allocations/month are on the rise, new members are on the rise
 - not much effect from 2015-01
 - no visible effect from suspending "multiple LIRs per member" (lower
 maximum, but steady high level).
 - things can change either way, rendering any estimation ..... very
 estimative....

> 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.

Not over-night.

> 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.

It will not be completely depleted, just reduced (and I can accept
"reduced by 50%").

> or we keep the existing policy that shares the pain for
> existing and future LIRs well into the next decade.

This is the problem that is supposed to be fixed : the pain.
And if at the same time we can also do something effective for boosting
IPv6 deployment, the pain level may be even less when the v4 pool will
be really empty.

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

So they told me too, I discovered that it's much more complicated.

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

Please !
Since it's not easy to find the following information: 
 - if a LIR received or not it's "last /22" (cannot distinguish from one
 that get it and sold it)
 - if a LIR has performed an "outbound" transfer or not
Thanks.