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

> On 22 Sep 2017, at 05:50, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike at swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Sep 2017, Tim Chown wrote:
> 
>>> 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/.
> 
> There is also:
> 
> https://www.ripe.net/publications/ipv6-info-centre/about-ipv6/ipv4-exhaustion/ipv4-available-pool-graph
> 
> Looks to me that there is still IPv4 space being returned, the run-rate on 185/8 is constant, we have approximately 4-5 years to go?
> 
> To me it looks like things are going according to plan, and I don't see any need to change anything.

I’d agree with that.

The proposal does no analysis of the “run rate” of consumption, or other the impact of other RIR policies.  I’d like to see that presented.

Looking at https://www.ripe.net/participate/policies/proposals/2017-03/, it seems that LACNIC have moved from a /22 to a /24 policy last month (so hard to measure impact yet), and ARIN are on a last /10 policy which sees applicants get a /28 to a /24, so presumably those /28’s are routed at some level; that’s been in place for some time, how is it working out?  What about APNIC and AFRINIC?

The current run-out projection is 2021/22, five years away. Consider where IPv6 deployment was 5 years ago.  Since then we’ve gone from ~0% deployment worldwide to ~20%, and seen a wide range of ISPs and content providers deploy, and importantly the bigger CDNs now provide dual-stack by default out-of the box.  Consider where we’ll be in 5 years from now.

Tim

PS. Seeing “more members” as a benefit is a strange advantage to add in the proposal, given these are implicitly people gaming the system?