> By placing all such addresses into the post-exhaustion pool with its > very restrictive policies for allocation/assignment, you create the > situation where: > > 1. APNIC is unlikely to receive additional space from IANA as > they are unlikely to exhaust the pool as defined in the proposed > global policy. Valid concern, though at that point I'd argue that new LIRs in the APNIC region are still better off in that they are guaranteed an allocation from the final /8, irrespective of the timing of the RIR obtaining 'new' space from IANA and the timings of other lIRs requesting new space. > 2. Once all current APNIC resource holders have received their single /22 > from this pool, the pool could become a monotonically increasing > collection of addresses that cannot be utilized. ...under current policy. The intent of the final /8 policy is to have a very conservative allocation policy that allows every single LIR one last piece of the pie. Allocation policy can be fine tuned (loosened up) for this last /8 at a later date if required. Seems a prudent approach to me. > Of course, the > workaround for this is to merely create an additional APNIC > org each time you want to receive a /22. > > The second concern is actually somewhat valid even with the existing > policy, but, certainly if there is the ability for this pool to grow from > external addresses, I suspect it will become a more tempting target. Given the size of the last /8 compared to the current number (and anticipated growth) of LIRs, I think the temptation is already there and won't be increased due to additional returned space. I support prop-88 as written. Cheers, Jonny.