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

Hi Radu-Adrian, All,


On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019, at 11:19, Jim Reid wrote:
>> The question here I think is what should be the trigger event. And then
>> what happens to the remaining v4 addresses that fell down the back of
>> the sofa, slipped through the cracks in the floorboards and ended up in
>> a disused basement behind a locked door that has a ?beware of the
>> leopard? sign.
>>
>> Well OK. That?s two questions. :-)
>
> Concerning the trigger, it seems pretty clear : Cannot allocate a single /22.
> The second, I would rewrite into "What is the amount of recovered space 
> every year? When does recovery happens (all year or specific period of 
> the year) ?".

That's really for the NCC's Registration Services Dept. to answer, i think 
:-)


> Plus estimations for the future if any.

Oh, that will be a hard exercise.



> However there are some questions on what does the NCC do *before* getting there.
>
> Let's remember there still are temporary allocations. How much space do 
> they usually take out of the /13 reserved for them ? Should be move 
> temporary allocations to standard pool (and merge their pool into the 
> main one) ? If yes, when ? Now ? When there are no more /22 in the 
> regular pool (preventing the switch to /24 for a few months) ? when 
> there is only /xx (/13 suggested) free space in the regular pool ? Do 
> we need a policy for that of is it just "NCC bookkeeping stuff" ?

I would say: Don't touch that /13. Keep it simple :-)


> There's the quarantine (returned/recovered blocks) : what happens when 
> there's not a single /22 in the "free" pool, but there is space in the 
> "Reserved pool" (quarantine + temp allocations).

Imho, that's a different pool.


>> How much v4 space would the NCC be holding once it?s no longer got /22s
>> to allocate?
>>
>> That?s three questions. :-)
>
> That's about 10 questions. An answer before the impact analysis (I'm 
> confident this will at least reach "impact analysis") would be greatly 
> appreciated.
>
> I will be able to give an opinion based on the answers to those 
> questions. For the moment I'm half for (because the waiting list is 
> something that will be needed at some point in the future),

Fully agree :-)


> and half against (the "let's end the IPv4 madness" stuff).

Please see my previous e-mail. Unfortunately IPv4 *usage* is not going 
away anytime soon... :(


Regards,
Carlos



> Regards,
> -- 
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
>