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

Hi Riccardo,

> Please explain how the current policy obtained a "success", luck? Why such policy was accepted and reached its consensum at that time?

I can answer that one.

For 2010-02 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2010-02) the WG started working down from one /8. Then the proposal started RIPE NCC had ±7540 LIRs. Using a /22 per LIR would allow for 16000 LIRs, so more than double the amount at the time. A /16 of address space was set aside for unforeseen circumstances, and the policy states that that reservation would become part of the main pool if not used for such unforeseen circumstances when the pool runs out.

I think Daniel's comment at the time sums it up quite nicely:
> And we have to care about new LIRs, we need to reserve some address space for them - as lots of internet resources will be accessible only over IPv4 for long period after depletion. It's about survivance of free allocatable IPv4 address space as long as possible.


2011-03 (https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2011-03) updated the policy regarding returned address space. If I remember correctly the arguments on the list at the time were that by putting all the returned address space in the same pool as 185/8 it was made sure that we wouldn't end up in a policy limbo where it was not clear which policy applied to which IPv4 addresses.

Another good quote, Dave wrote about 2011-03:
> And, frankly, we should take every opportunity remaining to expand the meagre pool of IPv4 addresses we leave to our children.


And that's how we arrived at today's policy.

Cheers,
Sander

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20160512/3f24cbb2/attachment.sig>