> On 4 Feb 2019, at 13:27, Sander Steffann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It seems you misunderstand the proposal. This policy agrees with you that
> /22s should be allocated until RIPE NCC runs out. It is about what happens
> afterwards. We create a waiting list with either /22 or /24 allocation size.
>
> - Choosing /22 means that the waiting list is unmanageable and therefore
> (mostly) useless.
> - Choosing /24 means that the waiting list is manageable and a bit less
> useless.
>
> We're not suggesting to change the allocation size now, only for the waiting
> list.
I’m not convinced there’s any point in having a waiting list or maintaining an
expensive bureauracy to oversee the dregs of the dregs of v4. IMO, once the NCC
is unable to allocate /22s to new LIRs, it’s game over. v4 is finally
exhausted. Get over it.
A policy to deal with whatever /24s the NCC might find stuffed down the back of
the sofa will be more bother than its worth. Unless someone can provide
compelling arguments -- ie there’s still a lot of v4 for the NCC to allocate --
I just don’t see the point. Sorry.
How much of this hypothetical /24 space does the NCC hold anyway? How long
might it last?
