[address-policy-wg] 2019-02 New Policy Proposal (Reducing IPv4 Allocations to a /24)

On 04/02/2019 14:40, Jim Reid wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:27, Sander Steffann <sander at steffann.nl> wrote:
>>
>> It seems you misunderstand the proposal. This policy agrees with you that /22s should be allocated until RIPE NCC runs out. It is about what happens afterwards. We create a waiting list with either /22 or /24 allocation size.
>>
>> - Choosing /22 means that the waiting list is unmanageable and therefore (mostly) useless.
>> - Choosing /24 means that the waiting list is manageable and a bit less useless.
>>
>> We're not suggesting to change the allocation size now, only for the waiting list.
> 
> I’m not convinced there’s any point in having a waiting list or maintaining an expensive bureauracy to oversee the dregs of the dregs of v4. IMO, once the NCC is unable to allocate /22s to new LIRs, it’s game over. v4 is finally exhausted. Get over it.
> 
> A policy to deal with whatever /24s the NCC might find stuffed down the back of the sofa will be more bother than its worth. Unless someone can provide compelling arguments -- ie there’s still a lot of v4 for the NCC to allocate -- I just don’t see the point. Sorry.
> 
> How much of this hypothetical /24 space does the NCC hold anyway? How long might it last?


But how tenable is it both in principle and in 'Internet governance'
terms for the NCC to collect fragmentlets of IPv4 and just sit on them?

Not very!

So we need a policy to allocate them in a useful manner.

The question before us is: What is the minimum useful allocation?
Nothing else.

Daniel