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

Hi,


Am 22.05.2016 um 12:01 schrieb Tore Anderson:
> * 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
>

in a membership organisation we have to treat all members equal when it 
comes to distributing the final IPv4 networks. You cannot take the right 
to request the final /22 away just because a member had no need so far 
to ask for it. This should have been put in the policy a few years ago 
(like "you have 4 years to request your /22") , but you cannot change 
this today working backward.

Wilhelm