This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/address-policy-wg@ripe.net/
[address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Remco van Mook
remco.vanmook at gmail.com
Thu May 12 00:06:42 CEST 2016
My apologies to all on the list - this will be my last email about this version of 2015-05. > On 11 May 2016, at 23:21 , Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote: > > 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 ? > I don't know about the 4,472, but let's say 1,000 of them will, at some point. What has been claimed by a multitude of proponents of this proposal is that apparently a single /22 is woefully inadequate to run your business on. I don't even disagree. All of those 4,000 have never received more than a single /22. Given the option to get more, following the rationale of the proposers, I would be very surprised if they didn't jump at that opportunity. The same goes for every new LIR - and they would even be able to include the second /22 in their business planning, so that's another 4,000. Quite a few LIRs who signed up during the 'run out fairly' period (2011-2012) also don't have a /20 of IPv4 address space, I don't have a number but let's put that at another 500. Finally, according to the proposed policy LIRs can come back every 18 months - so by mid 2018 the first group of 4,000 comes back again. That puts the total number of requests for additional /22s by mid 2018 at 13,500. That's 150% of the space you wanted to make available. There won't be space for newcomers in there. Remco -------------- 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/20160512/867947ad/attachment.sig>
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] 2015-05 Discussion Period extended until 13 May 2016 (Last /8 Allocation Criteria Revision)
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]