...
How exactly would "downscaling" work? A company demonstrates need for (say) a /19, and they get 8192/64 = a /25 - while a newcomer demonstrates the need for a /24, and gets a /30...
Aehem, a fixed threshold to give them a reasonable IPv4 footprint would do. But this is a quick answer, again. Proper engineering is needed, not to end in dead ends.
So if we go that way, quite some thought needs to go into implementation details.
Definitely. Regards, Andreas I agree with Peters comment, to think about "fairness" and "sustainability". But the latter, IHMO contradicts with Randy's comment, that IPv4 has no future (to which I agree also). In the first of Sander's questions, there were no one favouring IPv6 requirements with IPv4 allocations, so that's out of scope right now, UNLESS we're reopening that topic again (which I won't do). What's left over, is to look into the "fairness", which is achieved partly, that I request and monitor, that everybody still requesting IPv4 plays by the rules: For allowing "sustainability" for a couple of years, everybody has to deploy multiplexing techniques for newly allocated adress ranges. [This might introduce IPv6 requirements through a backdoos, as deploying multiplexing techniques may prove as expensive as migrating to IPv6, or even more.]
Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 128645
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-- -- Andreas Schachtner afs Holding GmbH communication technologies & solutions http://afs-com.de/ Geschaeftsfuehrer Andreas Schachtner HRB 15448, Amtsgericht Dortmund