Hi, here my comments. Roque
The proposal claims to create "certainty on how the remaining space will be allocated".
To me it seems the only advantage is to the RIRs with a slow burn-rate who may get space to allocate for 1-2 years longer than the big RIRs. It's not obvious that this makes it easier to predict the exact date of depletion -- for anyone. Nor does it anything to prevent a run on the remaining resources.
It does in the sense that each RIR will know the size of their last allocation.
How can/do you prevent registry-shopping in the period after the first RIRs run out of addresses?
we cant. not just registry shopping but also a secondary market. However when RIRs are involved there are certain policies in place.
To avoid a run between the RIRs to get the last few /8s it might be an idea to hand out at least one /8 to each RIR in the last round.
That is what we are proposing setting N=1. The issue is that as a global policy it needs to be approved by all the RIR, and that takes at least 18 months. If we reach consensus that allocating the last /8s to each RIR make sense, we just need to discuss how big the size of that last allocation should be. We proposed 5x/8, but many people finds that too big. what about N=2 or 3?
Although impossible, I belive the best would be if all RIRs run out at the exact same time which is the opposite of what the suggested policy aim to achieve.
This policy is a global policy only affects how IANA allocates addresses to the RIRs, it does not study each RIR individually. Some RIR allocates a minimum of a /20, other a /22, etc. I believe that if we approved this policy each RIR could discussed more conservative policies and hopefully the RIR pool will never run out (check the "slow landing" proposal at ARIN as an example).
//per
-- ------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian@antel.net.uy