Re: [sig-policy] prop-055-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space

["Hytham EL Nakhal" <hytham@mcit.gov.eg>]

Title: Re: [sig-policy] prop-055-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space

Hi Philip,

 

Kindly find my comments in blue between lines hereunder..

 

Thanks,

Haitham

---

From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net on behalf of Philip Smith
Sent: Wed 1/23/2008 10:52 AM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-055-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space

Thanks to all the authors for merging the two proposals - I think this
makes it easier to work with the concept now, rather than working out
the competitive aspects between the two.

Randy Bush said the following on 23/1/08 17:58:
>
> 2.  Summary of current problem
> ------------------------------
<snip>
> For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even small
> blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a policy that
> defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4 address space to
> be late comers would be appropriate in such region. This would allow
> availablilty of IPv4 address space for such requirements for more years.

Please provide a reference to this policy in the APNIC region? I can't
find one, and I really hope we aren't waiting for some kind soul to
propose something? Yet again we are putting the cart in front of the
horse, I fear.
Worst case, we may never see a policy or even a proposal which attempts
to address the above, in which case the final "special" APNIC /8 will be
depleted through the normal process. And I'm sure the authors do not
want all their hard work to go to waste because of this.

for sure we don't like to waste our hard work, but could anyone in any region propose a proposal for how to assign the last /8 before it's approved by IANA that each RIR will get a last /8 according to this proposal ?

> 4.   Details of the proposal
> ----------------------------
<snip>
> In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, at the time it is
> adopted, one /8 will be reserved by IANA for each RIR. The reserved
> allocation units will no longer be part of the available space at the
> IANA pool. IANA will also reserve one /8 to any new RIR at the time it
> is recognized.

Ummm, so when will IANA be reserving these /8s? Immediately the proposal
is successful in all RIR regions? So how will they know which new RIRs
(are there any in the works?) to reserve a /8 for. What happens if a new
RIR is formed at a later date - do they automatically get a /8 out of
the remaining pool? And what happens if one is formed after the final /8
has gone? Would it be fair to say to them "too bad, the consensus
process to form your RIR was too slow"...? Why should they be disadvantaged?

IANA will reserve immediately after the policy is approved (by ICANN Board by the current MOU).  The issue with "new RIR" came out from one of the RIR discussions about this hypothetical event. If an RIR is formed after IANA free pool is exhausted, that is a different discussion and out of the scope of this policy. Please note that the current IANA documents gives newly formed RIR an initial /8 (check section 2 of the current policy: http://www.aso.icann.org/docs/aso-001-2.pdf). So the hypothesis that you are mentioned (formed after the final /8 has gone) needs also to modify there too.

With the approved of this policy they would received one /8 and will have another one reserved.

> 5.   Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> -------------------------------------------------
> Advantages:
>
> - It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute
>    the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.

Does it? What is stopping any RIR community defining the policy right
now for any /8 the RIR has? I'm not aware of any impediment, apart from
someone to write the proposal. Maybe the authors representing each RIR
region could pen something appropriate? As I said above, would be a
shame for all their hard work to be wasted.

What we wanted to say is that it is compatible with several proposals that already exists at the RIR level (ARIN 2007-06 as an example) without needing to take the to the Global scope (which take more time) and avoiding the argument "this is a disadvantage from other RIRs".

 

 

> Disadvantages:
<snip>
> - Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies
>    will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the
>    requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's
>    policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent
>    LIRs from other regions submitting such requests.

Again, not all RIRs have policies explicitly restricting resource
allocations to organisations/LIRs who originate within the RIR region.
In fact, do any have this restriction?

 

As it was already said RIR shopping can happen with any policy but the size of this allocation do not make it an issue.

> 7.   Effect on NIRs
> -------------------
> The effect on APNIC members applies to members of NIRs. NIRs are
> therefore expected to inform their communities of the situation.

Just an aside, nothing to do with this proposal... I'm curious why this
policy will affect the NIRs, yet the IPv4 address transfer policy
prop-050-v002 has been deemed not to apply to them. Maybe someone can
explain this one. I'm not aware of anything in the APNIC policy process
which allows policy shopping by APNIC membership.

philip
--
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy