On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 11:42:11AM +1000, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Louie,
Hi Philip,
Louis Lee said the following on 26/08/10 08:00 :
I apologize personally for the delay in my response. I have
consulted with the rest of the authors to craft the reply
below.
That's okay, just means we probably end up repeating the
discussion on the floor in a few minutes. :-(
That was my bad. :-(
Is there an APNIC policy which says that it has to return
unused address space to IANA?
Not that I am aware of.
John Curran did state ARIN's position for clarification to
Randy's concerns:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2010/08/msg00112.h...
However, for purposes of clarity, it is ARIN's practice is
to return address space to the IANA, but the ARIN community
expressed concern with making the return of space to the IANA
a mandatory policy while there are RIR's which have abandoned
needs-based allocation address policies who would also be
drawing from the returned address space pool.
This statement is not to be taken as a comment on the merits
of prop-086.
Okay, so it is not being divided equally between RIRs. It will
be given to RIR regions who do not have carefully considered
soft-landing policies.
Wouldn't ARIN's policy 2008-5 qualify as a soft-landing policy?
Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment
When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a
contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to
facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and assignments from
this block must be justified by immediate IPv6 deployment
requirements.
Full details at:
https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2008_5.html
Can we agree that ARIN has a soft-landing policy?
As per above, those who are profligate and have no run-out
policy stand to benefit at the expense of the others.
Already addressed by Martin's reply to you:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2010/08/msg00119.h...
But if a new RIR just appears out of nowhere....
Not sure what you mean here. RIRs don't appear out of nowhere,
they are formed with their community support, and are part of
the global community.
I suppose that a new Internet Registry that comes about from
a bid to ICANN by an organization that considers itself to be
above the RIR system wouldn't be considered a "Regional" Internet
Registry. But such a bid would certainly ask for the new IR
to be treated equally as the RIRs, if it doesn't ask for
preferential treatment.
But banning transfers of the addresses covered by this policy
proposal does interfere with intra-RIR transfer policies.
Also addressed by Martin's reply to you:
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2010/08/msg00119.h...
We would like to encourage the RIR's to develop inter-RIR
transfer policy that is fair to all regions.
Well, you've just proposed one that transfers address space to
RIRs who don't have good soft landing policies in places. ;-)
;-)
For many years I was under the impression that IPv6 was where
we eventually wanted to be, and that IPv4 is going to be phased
out.
As much as I would also like to see IPv4 phased out, it would
likely have to come about by lack of demand.
We've developed a soft-landing policy for our final /8 here
in the APNIC service region (I was a co-author), designed to
ensure that the APNIC community has sufficient IPv4 from the
last /8 so they can fully transition to IPv6 over the coming
years.
And in a same spirit, the ARIN community is dedicating a /10
for transition purposes.
If organisations are giving IPv4 addresses back to APNIC
because they no longer need them (something I don't see
happening for many years yet), it means that the entire
industry will have successfully completed the transition to
IPv6. So why do we even need IPv4 addresses then?
So then this policy won't hurt if there's no demand for IPv4
addresses, right? At that point, no RIR will be in need for
new space from IANA.
Louie
--
Louie Lee
One of the authors of prop-086