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

* Riccardo Gori

> and we turn minimum request to a /24
> we can address this kind of problem while slowing down LIRs sign up rate 
> to obtain a /23 or /24 to address this kind of requests

This, in isolation, I think is idea worth exploring further.

The minimum allocation size started out as a /19 (cf. ripe-136). Over
time it's been adjusted down to the current /22. I think it might be
prudent to continue this trend at some point.

For example: change it to a /23 at the point when the NCC pool reaches
the equivalent of a /9, and then to a /24 when the pool reaches the
equivalent of a /24.

This would ensure the last /9-equivalent could accomodate three times
as many new entrants (24576) than if we continue with /22s (8192).

One would hope that even though the future new entrants will continue
to need some IPv4 to start their business, the amount will decrease as
IPv6 deployment increases. That is, a new entrant receiving a final /23
in 2017 might find it about as useful the final /22 was to a new
entrant in 2013.

Depending on how the membership fees and the pricing in the second-hand
IPv4 market develops, this could also help discourage abuse: if
everything else remains the same, the cost per address would
essentially double at each adjustment.


Another thing worth considering (separately) is to stop issuing
additional allocations. An "old LIR" (one that held IPv4 allocations on
the 14th of September 2012 that hasn't needed to request its final /22
in the four years since, is likely not growing anyway and that space is
better spent for new entrants. Four years is in any case a much longer
period than the LIRs last allocation was supposed to last.

Basically we'd need to change bullet #2 in ripe-649 section 5.1 to just
say «an LIR that currently hold or have previously held an IPv4
allocation is not eligible» or something like that. As an added bonus,
we'd then get rid of the quirky unexplained 14-09-2012 date referenced
in the current text.

This would prevent "old LIRs" that are already holding lots of address
space, perhaps mostly unused, from being able to pick up a final /22
anyway. I can easily see that a "new LIR" making very efficient use of
its final /22 while being unable to request another would find this very
unfair, as would the new entrants that inevitably would be denied any
final IPv4 allocations down the line (due to full depletion happening
earlier).

Unfortunately I won't be in Copenhagen so just consider this me
thinking out loud here on the list instead of at the Open Policy Hour.
I'm not going to submit any proposals myself though so anyone should
feel free to take the above ideas and run with them.

Tore