* Radu-Adrian FEURDEAN > While some people agree with the concept, I'm not sure that the > community in its whole (or majority) will agree with rolling-back > several years of (already-established) policies. This definitely needs > more discussion (maybe during a meeting): > - restore needs-based allocation (which has been "abolished" in order > to legitimate already widespread but not really appreciated practice- > lying about "needs" and "use") > - soften the "last /8" policy - between 2010 and now the situation > changed, and things will change even more in the upcoming years. Not to > mention that now we have some real-life experience.
Hello Radu-Adrian, It was the «last /8 policy» itself that abolished needs-based allocation, actually. After its implementation in autumn 2012, each LIR gets only a single /22, regardless of its actual need (which could be both larger or smaller than a /22). The rationale for this policy was not at all to «legitimate lying», but to attempt to ensure that new entrants would still be able to get hold of a little bit of IPv4 five or maybe even ten years after depletion. If we re-instate needs-based allocation, I'd expect that the RIPE NCC's remaining IPv4 pool would evaporate completely more or less over-night. The ~18 million IPv4 addresses in the RIPE NCC's pool are likely not nearly enough to cover the latent unmet need that has been building in the region since the «last /8 policy» was implemented. Tore
