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

On 06.02.2019 14:36, garry at nethinks.com wrote:
>> […] I'd
>> rather hand that /21 as two /22 to two new LIRs instead of eight /24
>> to eight new LIRs, since a /24 is basically useless anyway. Especially
>> if you have to wait 6 or more months for it. (Of course, /22 (in up to
>> /24 slices) will mean a much longer waiting time, which makes  IPv6
>> just more interessting. Or IPv4 brokers.)
> Why is a /24 useless?

Sorry for beeing too brief here: From my perspective, becoming an LIR
implies the intend to provide service a lot of customers, and I don't
see how a single /24 would suffice there. That's what I meant with
"basically useless" (from a business point of view).

> According to the 2019 billing scheme, this is still unchanged, though I
> reckon it does not apply to PA space:
>
> "The separate charge of EUR 50 per Independent Number resource
> assignment will be continued. Independent number resources are: IPv4 and
> IPv6 PI assignments; Anycasting assignments; IPv4 and IPv6 IXP
> assignments;"
>
> So fragmenting the /22 into /24s would not be of consequence to an LIR
> anyway, at least not financially. So strike my argument about that part.

Well, I'd like to debate whether a charge per /24 block held (so a /16
counts as 256 blocks) even for PA would "encourage" to return unnused
space, but I doubt this is the place nor would this be approved by the
GM anyway ;)
-kai