On Thu, Apr 23, 2015, at 20:12, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Tore Anderson wrote: > > > 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. > > Looking at http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/ (figure 28e) the RIPE > allocation rate was around 2-3 /8:s per year at the time of the last /8 > policy kicked into effect, so the ~18 million addresses would be gone in a > matter of days, at the same rate that LIRs could create applications and > send them in.
"Needs based" starts with "you don't get anything if you don't acutally have a need for". I suppose that "selling" does not qualify as "need". And "needs-based" doesn't imply "you get all that you need". For me an "you get what is available *IF* you need something" (and some other conditions) still counts as "needs-based". The problem now (Elvis' policy is just one more proof) is that LIRs can get space even if they don't actually need it: 1. Ask for "your space", *promise* to make allocations, get "your" space. 2. [Optional] Bring up a new instace of "you" and go to step 1. > So apart from a few people, most of us agree that any attempt at changing > policy in the more liberal direction is doomed to fail miserably. Again, *more* liberal, does not mean *most* liberal. There's a huge gap between the policies in force 13/09/2012 and before and the ones in force 14/09/2012 and after. This what I would like to see fixed. Could any of you have your company survive with only a /22 (and 10-15 $/IP extra, 256/512/1024 packs towards 15$/IP) ?
