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

Roger Jørgensen wrote:
>  We've passed the "it's nice to have" some years ago, now we're down
> to , do you _really_ need 10 addresses? Can you survive with 2 and
> deploy IPv6?

No really, we're not.  The RIPE Community exited the "do you really need
X addresses?" stage in 2014.

We're now at the stage where LIRs need to do what they feel is necessary
to preserve their remaining stocks of IP addresses in the way that they
feel is most appropriate for their long term requirements.

There are training courses, policy documents, endless discussions, ARC
checks and more advice available than you can shake a stick at, all of
which is aimed at helping inform LIRs about depletion and what to do.

But ultimately it is up to the LIRs.  Neither the RIPE Community nor the
RIPE NCC has any business beating them with sticks to get them to plan
for their futures.  If they do not do this, it is not the responsibility
of the RIPE NCC or the RIPE Community to do it for them.

If LIRs need more IPv4 address space after their single allocation from
the RIPE NCC, then they need to look on the open market.

If/when the open market dries up or becomes too expensive, then there
will be no options left except ipv6 and/or even more NAT.

Nick