Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development

[Robert Gray <bob@brockhurst.co.nz>]

On 26/09/2007 8:20 p.m., Randy Bush wrote:

> - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?

Hi Randy,

The arguments on this proposal of providing certainty are quite compelling. As 
an RIR I would certainly like to see that and indeed as a space user I think it 
addresses a real need.

You would hope that very conservative allocation criteria for the last /8(s) 
would then be adopted in each region.

So yes, it does solve one problem.

> - What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining
>   /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?

I'm less clear about this and there are pros and cons. On balance I think RIR 
should be allocated two, /8 blocks. This would provide for an extended 
allocation period before final exhaustion if the above mentioned "very 
conservative allocation criteria" are introduced.

It might even be long enough to dig us out of the hole we are heading towards.

> - Are distribution policy changes needed for the final /8 delegated to
>   APNIC by IANA? If yes, what changes do you think are needed?

Definitely yes. "very conservative allocation criteria"

Here is a suggestion.

The last one or two /8's be only allocated to those who have not had an 
allocation before. The initial allocation process/criteria would remain 
essentially unchanged.

Rational.

It puts pressure on ISP's with allocations to introduce more restrictive 
allocations internally and to look very hard at alternatives such as trading 
with other ISPs, aggressive reclamation, V6. Indeed all the things that they 
would do upon exhaustion but earlier.

At the same time it allows new entrants and others without V4 allocations to 
obtain at least some V4 space so that their business model, whatever it may be 
and without needing APNIC to assess it's merits, can at least be started. These 
new entrants would also be obliged to look at the alternatives in the same way 
as the existing space holders above but at least on an equal footing, i.e. from 
a base of having some V4 space.

The size and limitations on the initial allocation (even if these remained 
unchanged) would make it unlikely or at least improbable that it would be worth 
while to set up a whole new organiastion and join APNIC in disguise so to speak 
to obtain one.

Benefits

For me the worst effect of V4 exhaustion has always been that it entrenches a 
haves/have nots situation. No new businesses can start without a sever2e 
handicap (i.e. no V4 space).

This suggestion, while I am sure it has flaws, puts the pressure on established 
holders starting soon or very soon, while allowing new entrants to get enter 
into the game.

I'm sure this has holes. Feel free to point them out to me gently :)

--
Robert Gray
bob@brockhurst.co.nz