Hi Raymond, > I strongly oppose this proposal, a similar proposal was mode before, > (2017-03) , > and I agree with the arguments opposing the proposal.
2017-03 was a different kind of proposal. At that time the choice was between handing out /22 or handing out /24 to all new LIRs. While I did think back then that this was a good idea I understood the reasons against that proposal. LIRs that would get a /22 under the old policy would then get a /24, making things worse for those LIRs. It would also delay the moment that the NCC would hit the bottom by a very long time, therefore potentially giving the impression that IPv4 was still available. Your concluding argument for that proposal was "A /22 is not even enough, let alone a /24 to yet connect to the "dark ages of the IPv4 internet", not now and unfortunately not in the future either...". And at the time that was a valid argument, because of those LIRs that otherwise would get a /22. For this proposal the circumstances have changed though. Now the choice is between giving the new LIRs that come after the /22s have run out a /24 or nothing at all. The analysis from the NCC has shown that if we make a waiting list with /22s the queue will grow indefinitely, which means that the vast majority of the LIRs will never get anything at all. With a /24 allocation size the waiting list becomes manageable and more predictable. I don't think that choosing to give them nothing when we could have given them a /24 is a reasonable argument at the point in time when we have already run out of /22s... Cheers, Sander
