Re: [sig-policy] prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries

[Gaurab Raj Upadhaya <gaurab@lahai.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I agree in principle on the policy, i am concerned, and agree with Terry
, about the operational impact of such a change.

How will rDNS be maintained. how'll the whois database be
updated/maintained and as such.

If the policy addresses these issues, I think it'll help in avoiding
confusion in future to all the RIR and IANA staffs implementing the policy.

thanks
 -gaurab




Terry Manderson wrote:
> On 03/02/2009, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
> 
>> Dear SIG members
>>
>> Version 2 of the proposal "Global policy proposal for the
>> allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" has been
>> sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
>> Policy SIG at APNIC 27 in Manila, Philippines, 23-27 February 2009.
>>
>> The proposal's history can be found at:
>>
>>        http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-069-v002.html
> 
> It would be nice if there was a 'diff' function in the website to make  
> it easier to see what changes have been made between policy versions.
> 
>>
>> This new version of the proposal contains a new section, "Definitions"
>> inserted after section 1, "Introduction".
>>
>> We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
>>
>>       - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> 
> Generally speaking I think the proposal is sensible. It provides for a  
> cleaner way to address resource allocation (ie in the natural  
> hierarchical model that exists now) when demand for ipv4 creates  
> shortages. I like that it reduces the reliance on inter-RIR transfers,  
> as new comers can apply for address space, as apposed to a market- 
> seeking approach. Provided of course that there are resources  
> available in the recovered IPv4 pool.
> 
>>       - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> 
> How this policy affects the ancillary functions surrounding the IP  
> address space.
> 
> One that (and there are others I'm sure) comes to mind is reverse  
> delegations.
> 
> Is the intent of this policy to also have the in-addr.arpa delegation  
> changed?
> 
> for example 202.in-addr.arpa is delegated to APNIC. For the purposes  
> here lets say that 202.12.28/23 was handed back to the IANA at the  
> quarterly interval. Would the RIR then have the DNS delegation for  
> 202.in-addr.arpa amended such that it omits that /23 enabling the  
> future allocated RIR to advise IANA the delegation details? And  
> similarly what then is the expectation for the member who receives  
> that address space?
> 
> Further, while the policy does limit its scope to the relationship  
> between the IANA and the RIR, in this hierarchical world of resource  
> allocation surely there would be downward pressure for the same  
> behaviours towards NIRs and LIRs.
> 
> I think I would like to see a policy that dovetails into this for the  
> remainder of the hierarchy.
> 
> Cheers
> Terry
> *              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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmH2gQACgkQSo7fU26F3X2EtQCdGxdVatmdCC6ihZsq0+m0Caho
g1sAoPUghWZjaq6Jsx91HWn33NHga6RH
=2wwe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----