<HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Re: [address-policy-wg] Policy Proposal : "Run Out Fairly"</TITLE> </HEAD> <BODY> Dear Daniel, dear all, First of all I support this proposal, and thank you for taking the time to create it. I think the idea has great merit, but I’m also reminded of an idea I sent out to the address policy mailing list and the feedback I got based on that. For that thread, see: <a href="http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00501.html">http://www.ripe.net/ripe/maillists/archives/address-policy-wg/2008/msg00501.html</a> . Just to refresh your memory, I proposed a policy that would only allocate a single block of space, regardless of the size of the request and available remaining inventory. One of the main shortcomings of my idea was that assignments from a new allocation don’t happen in a ‘gradual’ way, which is one of the main assumptions behind any scheme based on time-windows. Larger organizations will just come back quicker – not necessarily after the set window. I’m afraid this proposal has the same ‘weakness’. Kind regards, Remco On 06-04-09 14:10, "Daniel Karrenberg" <<a href="daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net">daniel.karrenberg@ripe.net</a>> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE> Dear colleagues, attached you will find a policy proposal we call "Run Out Fairly". It is based on a discussion instigated by your's truly during the open policy hour at the latest RIPE meeting. This is a proposal to gradually reduce the allocation and assignment periods in step with the expected life time of the IPv4 unallocated pool in order to address the perception of unfairness once the pool has run out. The proposal is not intended to stretch the lifetime of the unallocated pool. The proposal is independent of other proposals to reserve address space for transition purposes and/or new entrants. It can be implemented independently of these. We thank Filiz Yilmaz for her help, invite discussion of this proposal and look forward to high quality comments. For the authors Daniel Karrenberg PS: Can we refer to this proposal by name and not by number? ;-) </BLOCKQUOTE> This email is from Equinix Europe Limited or one of its associated/subsidiary companies. This email, and any files transmitted with it, contains information which is confidential, may be legally privileged and is solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email immediately. Equinix Europe Limited. Registered Office: Quadrant House, Floor 6, <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:Street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">17 Thomas More Street</st1:address></st1:Street>, <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:Street w:st="on">Thomas More Square</st1:Street>, <st1:City w:st="on">London</st1:City> <st1:PostalCode w:st="on">E1W 1YW</st1:PostalCode></st1:address>. Registered in <st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Wales</st1:place></st1:country-region> No. 6293383.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> </body> </HTML>