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

Roger Jørgensen wrote:
> Be specific, is it for having more address for the end-users? Datacenter?
> Services? Infrastructure? IPv6-to-IPv4 services? CGN? Proxyes?

[x] all of the above, and more.

This question isn't relevant as it seems - lots of organisations have
their needs and the RIPE NCC cannot and should not be arbiter of whose
need is greatest or should take precedence.

What's relevant is that due to a shortage of IPv4 address space,
businesses are being forced to change business practices.  This impacts
on AP-WG because on the one hand, there are some addresses left at the
bottom of the RIPE NCC barrel, and on the other, many LIRs are looking
at these addresses, realising that if they could only get their hands on
some of them, it would make life a whole lot easier.  AP-WG is seen as a
place that could potentially tilt the balance one way or another, if
only consensus could be gained.

There are no good solutions to the problem at hand, only compromises.
If the current policy is changed to something else, the people who
benefit in the short term will be happier and the people who pay for
this generosity will be disappointed.

And, as has been pointed out repeatedly by many people for many years,
full depletion is only a couple of years down the road, regardless of
what allocation policy is applied.  Any change of policy is little more
than rearranging deck-chairs on the Titanic.

The ship is going down and there is nothing that anyone in the world can
do to prevent this.

Nick