Re: The Reg does 240/4

[Owen DeLong via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

> 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