[sig-policy] Report on prop-062: Use of final /8
_______________________________________________________________________
>
> prop-062: Use of final /8
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
> Dear SIG members
>
> Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
> you to continue discussions on the mailing list before APNIC 26.
>
> Regards,
> Randy and Jian
>
>
> Proposal summary
> ----------------
>
> It is proposed that new and existing LIRs in the APNIC region be able
> to receive a single /22 from the last /8 if they meet the current
> allocation criteria.
>
> In addition, it is proposed that a /16 be reserved from the final /8
> for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.
>
> This proposal would only be implemented if APNIC receives a final /8
> from IANA under the successful implementation of "prop-055: Global
> policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space".
>
> Proposals similar to this one have been submitted to the following
> RIRs:
>
> ARIN "2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
> deployment"
> is currently under discussion.
>
> LACNIC "LAC-2008-04: Special IPv4 allocations/assignments reserved
> for new members" reached consensus at the LACNIC XI meeting
> in May 2008.
>
>
> Discussion statistics
> ---------------------
>
> Posted to Policy SIG mailing list: 15 July 2008
>
> Number of posts: 30
>
> Number of people participating in discussions: 9
>
>
> Summary of discussions to date
> ------------------------------
>
> - There was concern that the total number of /22s reserved under the
> proposal would leave most of the final /8 unallocated for a very
> long
> time.
>
> - It was suggested that adopting the proposal, and leaving much of
> the last /8 unallocated, could be against APNIC By-laws, which
> state that APNIC's purpose is to distribute resources.
>
> - It was suggested that the proposal use the same reservation size
> used in the policy that reached consensus in the LACNIC region: a
> /12 rather than a /8.
>
> - There was discussion about the projected membership numbers over
> the coming years.
>
> - It was questioned whether it was necessarily unsatisfactory if
> part
> of the last /8 remained unused.
>
> - It was pointed out that networks could request IPv6 space if the
> /22 that would be allocated under this proposal did not meet
> networks' needs.
>
> - It was noted that the proposal was suggesting a form of rationing
> and that rationing could lead to hoarding and markets where prices
> are inflated by the relative scarcity of the item.
>
> - It was questioned why the distribution of the final /8 under
> current APNIC policies was unfair and needed to be changed.
>
> - It was suggested that it might be a good idea to reserve some IP
> addresses for potential future outcomes, but not as much as stated
> in the proposal.
>
> - It was noted that the point of the proposal was to allow networks a
> share of the remaining IPv4 pool, not to grow their IPv4 networks,
> but to help networks make the move to IPV6.
>
> - It was suggested that there be a proposal that tied a reserved block
> of final IPv4 addresses to a demonstrated plan for IPv6 deployment.
>
> - It was suggested that this proposal abandons the previous principal
> of allocating IP addresses on the basis of demonstrated need.
>
> - It was noted that it was important to let the Internet industry
> remain open to new entrants, and that this proposal allowed this to
> occur.
>
> - It was suggested that there be a sunset clause for the proposed
> policy, after which, any unallocated addresses in the reserved block
> be made available under the current justified need criteria.
>
> - It was suggested that to prevent LIRs opening up multiple
> organizations to obtain more than one /22 from the pool, that APNIC
> have the right to review allocations from the block and have the
> right to revoke allocations to multiple incorporations of the
> same organization.
>
> - It was suggested that /22 could be too small to be used in conjunction
> with services such as NAT. It was suggested that /21 could be more
> suitable.
>
>
> Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions
> of it at earlier APNIC meetings, can be found at:
>
> http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v001.html
>
>