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

Dear Carlos, Radu-Adrian, all,

Following your questions, I have some numbers and other information that might be useful.

1. Currently, there will be 977,408 IPv4 addresses remaining in our free pool once we are no longer able to allocate contiguous /22s. This number excludes prefixes that are smaller than a /24 and those prefixes that have been reserved for IXP assignments or temporary assignments. It might also be slightly larger by then, due to addresses that are recovered in the meantime.

2. Over the past three years, we have recovered the following amounts of IPv4 addresses:

2016: 83,712
2017: 106,368
2018: 53,824

Once an IPv4 allocation or assignment has been de-registered from its holder, it is added to the RIPE NCC’s free pool (after a quarantine period). It is then available to be allocated to another organisation.

There are no specific periods of time for recovering IPv4 addresses from resource holders. This can happen at any point and for multiple reasons, all of which are unpredictable. For this reason, any predictions we could make about the number of addresses we expect to recover in the future would be highly unreliable.

3. We have assigned the following amounts of IPv4 addresses as temporary assignments over the past three years:

2016: 205,568
2017: 188,928
2018: 162,048

(Note that these figures represent the sum of all temporary assignments made in that year.)

Temporary assignments are made from a /13 that has been reserved for this purpose. When a temporary assignment is returned, it is added back to this pool.

Finally, I would like to clarify that IPv4 allocations and temporary assignments come from two separate pools - neither influences the other.

I hope this helps.


Kind regards,

Nikolas Pediaditis
Assistant Manager Registration Services & Policy Development
RIPE NCC


> On 8 Feb 2019, at 14:32, Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN <ripe-wgs at radu-adrian.feurdean.net> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, at 09:43, Carlos Friaças wrote:
>>> 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 
>> :-)
> 
> Exactly !
> 
>>> Plus estimations for the future if any.
>> 
>> Oh, that will be a hard exercise.
> 
> They (the NCC) are pretty good at this kind of stuff.
> 
>>> 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 :-)
> 
> That may get some people angry. A /13 is 512 /22s (5-6 weeks worth of allocations at current rate) or 2048 /24s (I expect that to be more than 6 months worth with the current proposal). That is beginning to be a little too much.
> 
> Let's remember that with the current proposal, the price of a /24 via "additional LIR" will be pretty much in line with the market one (unless the market prices spike within one year). That will definitely reduce the LIR creation and in consequence the allocation rate.
> 
> As for users of temporary allocations, there's the "conference" guys that should be kicked a little bit to do more IPv6 and less IPv4 (last years CiscoLive Barcelona was a pretty big fail for this matter - I understand they finally fixed it this year). 
> 
>>> 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.
> 
> It's different, but after a few months address blocks go from quarantine pool to the allocation pool. Reason to get some people angry.
> 
>>> 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... :(
> 
> No, it's not going away, but we should to everything necessary to move from a stance "IPv6 guys area savage geeks, the normal is IPv4" to one of "IPv4 is outdated retrograde stuff, IPv6 is normal". As long as "you can still get your tiny piece of IPv4" I don't think the general mindset will change.
> 
> Then we could get to a situation similar with one we had with current policy : almost 3 years into the "last /8" we had more than a /8 available for a few months. I wouldn't like something similar to happen again. I would like to have the waiting list "populated" permanently starting from 2021 (even late 2020).
> 
> -- 
> Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20190208/20464d95/attachment.p7s>