[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Arash Naderpour wrote:

> Hi Carlos,
>  

Hi,

>       This proposal is not aimed at preventing the complete runout. That will happen. This proposal aims to preserve some tiny resources for new entrants in
>       this community, by trying to extend the time period until the runout occurs. We cannot "measure" its benefits until the runout occurs, and we can then
>       count how many new entrants did get a tiny portion of (new, never used before) IPv4 address space.
> 
> 
> The current policy without this change is doing the same, preserving tiny resources (/22) for new entrants. 
> You are saying that there are some benefit and we cannot measure them now, but lets do it, am I right?

I'm saying there is an obvious benefit: accomodate more new entrants.

Because an org is able to have/open multiple LIRs, the real new entrants 
number is not really easy to calculate :-)



>             Even if there is a need, it could be 3x/24 or /23.why change it from /22 to /24?
> 
>
>       Yes, a /23+/24 or a /23 would be a step in the right direction. If, at global level, a /25 or a /26 was acceptable (routing-wise), then that would be
>       even better. 
>
>        I would also like to draw your attention to the last section about "Alignment with other RIRs": LACNIC already has this in place. ARIN has something,
>       which isn't really exactly the same, but the main goal is very similar. :-)
> 
>  
> 
> Still unanswered, why /24 not a /23+/24 or a /23?

Going to a /24 will potentially accomodate more new entrants than a /23 or 
a /23+/24, and definitely more than the currently /22.

A /25 or a /26 are not feasible as of today. Not sure if it will ever be.


> what is the benefit of this "Alignment with other RIRs" to the RIPE community? I don't see any need for that too. 

Just to let everyone know we are not "innovating" nothing here. Different 
communities already took this step towards extending the period where "new 
entrants" are able to get some IPv4 address space.


Regards,
Carlos Friaças


> Regards,
> 
> Arash
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
>             Arash
> 
> 
>
>             On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 12:34 AM, Tim Chown <tjc at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>                   > On 21 Sep 2017, at 13:33, Aled Morris <aled.w.morris at googlemail.com> wrote:
>                   >
>                   > On 21 September 2017 at 12:43, Marco Schmidt <mschmidt at ripe.net> wrote:
>                   > The goal of this proposal is to reduce the IPv4 allocations made by the RIPE NCC
>                   > to a /24 (currently a /22) and only to LIRs that have not received an IPv4 allocation
>                   > directly from the RIPE NCC before.
>                   >
>                   > At the current run-rate, do we know what is the expected expiry of the free pool in RIPE's hands?
>
>                   There?s http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/.
>
>                   Tim
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>