> > 1. RIRs, following > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/allocation-ipv4-rirs-2012-02-25-en, > would request new /8s, and receive those allocations.
I don’t think this applies any more. I could be wrong, but I think based on current practice, IANA would simply distribute 3 of the 16 /8s to each of the RIRs. That’s been the process for recovered blocks since the last 5 /8s from the free pool were distributed. > 2. Entities[*] with pent up demand would submit requests and have those > requests filled by the RIRs Which would rapidly deplete that space in most RIRs and leave an abundance of wasted space sitting on the shelf in a couple of RIRs with policies that prolong the shortage on the pretense that it enhances the useful life of IPv4. > 3. While more /8s in 240/4 remain, go to step 1 Or not. (See my comment on step 1) > 4. Return to status quo ante. Which happens almost immediately for IANA and soon thereafter in most RIRs. > > In other words, while the IANA free pool is not (again) empty, network > operators would be able to get IPv4 address space at a fraction of the market > price, and then we’d go back to the way things are now. > > This suggests the length of time the primary benefit (cheap IPv4 addresses) > would be enjoyed depends on RIR allocation policies. ISTR a comment from you > earlier suggesting that based on current consumption rates, 240/4 would > fulfill needs for 50 years. However, this appears to assume that current > “soft landing” (etc) policies would remain in place. Why would you assume > that? I would imagine there would be non-trivial pressure from the RIR > memberships to return to the pre-runout policy regime which was burning > through multiple /8s in months. In particular, I’d think the large scale > buyers of address space (as well as IP market speculators) who tend to be the > most active in RIR policy forums would jump at the opportunity to get “huge > tracts of land” at bargain basement prices again. > > This doesn’t seem all that positive to me, particularly because it’s > temporary since the underlying problem (limited resource, unlimited demand) > cannot be addressed. What positive impact do you predict? Here, I 100% agree with David. (Which is quite rare) Owen
