Hi,

Considering that many LIRs(if not all) certainly do need extra IPv4 space, I'd assume that all of them would ask for the extra /22. This will lead to very fast IPv4 depletion, which was exactly what the "last /8" policy tried to avoid.

In my opinion we shouldn't care how strict or relaxed is our policy against the other RIRs'. We just need to make sure some IPv4 space will be available to new entrants for the next few years.

The fact that the current pool is more than 99% of the equivalent of a /8, is an indication that the "last /8" policy works quite well and we shouldn't relax it.

For these reasons I don't support this proposal.

George

On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 9:14 AM, Garry Glendown <garry@nethinks.com> wrote:

Hi,

considering the goal we all (should) have - allowing for new entries in
the market to get a mostly non-overpriced way to enter in to the market
- I believe the current wording of both 2015-01 and this proposal have a
"fail" built in. While I do understand that existing IP-holders would
appreciate being able to get additional IPs, considering the limitations
for new entries and the problems caused for later new entries once we
actually run out of available v4 addresses it seems highly "unfair" if
somebody already holding something like a /19 or larger could still go
to RIPE and further deplete the free pool. (and I do understand the
organizational problems, we are currently trying to help a small carrier
migrating from its current upstream/service provider to his own setup,
only receiving a /22 for projected 3000 end customers /already well over
1000 right now is definitely a pain!)

So, if we /should/ even consider and /agree/ on distributing more than
the /22, this ought to be limited to only those LIRs that are below a
certain threshold sum of PI/PA held. So, e.g.:

Say a new policy goes in effect as of 1/2016 to allow an additional /22
to be requested. Anybody since 2012 only received a /22 (unless
otherwise transfered). Therefore, requests would only be allowed for
LIRs (both newer and pre-2012 ones) that have a /22 or less. Another 18
months later (to stick with the proposal), only holders of a /20 or less
could apply for another full or partial /22. And so on. That way, any
remaining (or newly freed) space would first benefit those who need the
IPs most.

Also, any LIR that has transfered parts or all of its IPs should not be
entitled for requesting any of those IPs for a certain duration after
the transfer, even with the "non transfer policy" in place.

I agree with some of the statements here that any projection as to the
duration our last /8 will last is at best a (more or less) educated
guess. Projections from the more distant past do not really count, as
people requiring IPv4 will now more and more consider becoming an LIR
instead of earlier when they would have just requested a PI through
their provider. So I would assume the number of new LIRs will noticeably
increase. And as there is no incentive (please correct me if I'm wrong)
to just request the /24 they need, they will most likely take the full
/22 allotted for new LIRs, after all they might be able to sell 3 /24's
off once the retention period of 2 years is over, reducing their overall
cost or even turning a profit ...

-garry