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

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019, Kai 'wusel' Siering wrote:

> 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).
>

An organisation can still use the /22 (or a /24) to become independent in 
terms of addressing from transit suppliers...



>> 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 ;)

Yup :-)

Cheers,
Carlos


> -kai
>
>
>