I have a few concerns about the proposal, in-line...
- Introduction
This policy defines the process for the allocation of IPv4 addresses
post "Exhaustion Phase" [1].
Why are we trying to prolong the use of IPv4 even past the end? Just
curious as the text doesn't say why we want/need to do this.
- Summary of the current problem
With the depletion of the IANA free pool of IPv4 address space, the
current policy regarding the allocation of IPv4 address space to the
RIRs will become moot. The RIRs may, according to their individual
policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space. This policy
provides a mechanism for the RIRs to retro allocate the recovered IPv4
address space to the IANA and provides the IANA the policy by which it
can allocate it back to the RIRs on a needs basis.
Why would, and what's the incentive for, the RIRs to return IPv4 address
space to the IANA?
This policy creates a
new global pool of IPv4 address space that can be allocated where it is
needed on a global basis without a transfer of address space between the
RIRs.
The proposal in 5.3 says that the reclamation pool is divided equally
amongst RIRs - which contradicts the above para.
5.1 Reclamation Pool
Upon adoption of this IPv4 address policy by the ICANN Board of
Directors, the IANA shall establish a Reclamation Pool to be
utilized post RIR IPv4 exhaustion as defined in Section 4. The
reclamation pool will initially contain any fragments that may be
left over in IANA inventory.
I understood that IANA was exhausting its entire pool. Or is exhaustion
really just complete /8s? It would be helpful if someone from IANA could
clarify as I was under the impression that remaining fragments would be
distributed as well, certainly before IANA declared that the cupboard
was bare. The remaining fragments are not insignificant.
5.3 Address Allocations from the Reclamation Pool by the IANA
Allocations from the Reclamation Pool may begin once the pool is
declared active. Addresses in the Reclamation Pool will be
allocated on a CIDR boundary equal to or shorter than the longest
minimum allocation unit of all RIRs in order to complete these
allocations.
"Longest minimum allocation" doesn't parse very well, and indeed the
first two words contradict each other. Perhaps it would be clearer to
say "smallest minimum allocation".
The Reclamation Pool will be divided on CIDR
boundaries and distributed evenly to all eligible RIRs. Any
So each time when, say ARIN, pushes the button for the policy, and gets
a /19, the other 4 RIRs will each get a /19 as well? Even if they don't
need it? This seems an unusual method of address space distribution -
maybe we should have thought about this at the start of IPv4 20+ years
ago. ;-)
It also means that the RIRs who have actually implemented runout
policies (eg APNIC) for the final /8 will start stockpiling extra
address space. Remind me what the incentive was for returning unused
address space to IANA? This seems like a contradiction.
5.4 RIR Eligibility for Receiving Allocations from the Reclamation Pool
Upon the exhaustion of an RIR's free space pool and after receiving
their final /8 from the IANA [3], an RIR will become eligible to
request address space from the IANA Reclamation Pool when it
publicly announces via its respective global announcements email
list and by posting a notice on its website that it has exhausted
its supply of IPv4 address space. Exhaustion is defined as an
inventory of less than the equivalent of a single /8 and the
inability to further assign address space to its customers in units
equal to or shorter than the longest of any RIR's policy defined
minimum allocation unit.
Again "longest minimum" doesn't make a lot of sense (to me anyway).
Also, exhaustion means "nothing left", not "1 month's supply" in the
case of APNIC. Or "2 year's supply" in the case of AfriNIC. Etc.
Any RIR that is formed after the ICANN
Board of Directors has ratified this policy is not eligible to
utilize this policy to obtain IPv4 address space from the IANA.
This seems grossly unfair and unreasonable. What if, for example, a new
RIR is formed in the Middle East. Do you seriously think that this new
RIR should be denied any IPv4 address space at all, especially when the
rest of the world is still trying to share IPv4 address space amongst
the folks who too lazy to move onwards?
5.5 Reporting Requirements
The IANA shall publish on at least a weekly basis a report that is
publicly available which at a minimum details all address space that
has been received and that has been allocated.
Don't they do this already for the existing IANA allocations? As do the
RIRs. (I guess this is making sure that IANA doesn't stop doing it.)
5.6 No Transfer Rights
Address space assigned from the Reclamation Pool may be transferred
if there is either an ICANN Board ratified global policy or globally
coordinated RIR policy specifically written to deal with transfers
whether inter-RIR or from one entity to another. Transfers must meet
the requirements of such a policy. In the absence of such a policy,
no transfers of any kind related to address space allocated or
assigned from the reclamation pool is allowed.
The reason for banning transfers is...?
APNIC has a policy allowing transfers between account holders. I don't
think that this policy can simply march in and take over the existing
transfer policy proposal like this. I'd rather see a separate proposal
covering transfers after this one gains consensus. (Or it could be done
in parallel I suppose.)
- Pros/Cons
5.1 Advantages
- The policy provides a mechanism for the ongoing distribution of
IPv4 address space.
Why do we need ongoing distribution of IPv4 address space? I'd have
hoped that the policy proposal would have explained this somewhere.
5.2 Disadvantages
- None identified.
See above. There are many.
philip
--