[sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal

  • To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-046-v002: IPv4 countdown policy proposal
  • From: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 11:48:28 +0900
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
  • List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
  • List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
  • List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
  • List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
    • 
      Version two of the proposal "IPv4 countdown policy proposal"
      has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the
      Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29 August - 7 September
      2007.
      
      I invite you all to review the proposal below and send comments to the
      mailing list before APNIC 24.
      
      The proposal's history can be found at:
      
                http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-046-v002.html
      
      Regards
      ---
      Toshiyuki Hosaka
      Policy SIG Chair
      
      
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      prop-046-v002:   IPv4 countdown policy
      ________________________________________________________________________
      
      
      
      Author:     JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team
                         Akinori MAEMURA
                         Akira NANAGAWA
                         Izumi OKUTANI
                         Kosuke ITO
                         Kuniaki KONDO
                         Shuji NAKAMURA
                         Susumu SATO
                         Takashi ARANO
                         Tomohiro FUJISAKI
                         Tomoya YOSHIDA
                         Toshiyuki HOSAKA
      
      Version:   2
      
      Date:      6 August 2007
      
      
      
      1.  Introduction
      ----------------
      
      The exhaustion of IPv4 address space is projected to take place within
      the next few years. This proposal seeks to focus on measures that should
      be taken globally in the address management area in order to prepare for
      the situation in all RIR regions. Policy measures that require
      considerations within the Asia Pacific region are reviewed in a separate
      discussions paper.
      
      
      2.  Summary of current problem
      ------------------------------
      
      1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the
          last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not match the
          reality of the situation in each RIR region.
      
          Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period
      vary by
          region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
          different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may
      not
          adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work
          for the others.
      
          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.
      
          Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate.
          For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be
          necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as
          well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some
          regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for
          translators.
      
          A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed
          above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not
      solving
          issues in any of the regions.
      
      2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they are
          not informed.
      
          If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their
          services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the
          time of exhaustion.
      
      
      3.   Situation in other RIRs
      ----------------------------
      
      Version 1 of this proposal has been submitted to all RIRs for
      discussion. This version of the proposal, version 2, will also be
      submitted to all RIRs.
      
      
      4.   Details of the proposal
      ----------------------------
      
      This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the
      problems listed above.
      
      1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies on
          how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to
          address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.
      
      2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will be
          able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The
          criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to avoid
          confusion.
      
      The details of the proposal is as follows:
      
      1) It should be completely left up to each RIR communities to define a
          regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to
          LIRs within their respective regions after "IANA Exhaustion Date".
      
          - This will lead to solution 1)
      
          - A policy during the exhaustion period within the AP region is
            discussed a separate discussion paper
      
          Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations with the
                  existing policy if that is the consensus decision of the
                  respective RIR community.
      
          Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of recovered address
                  space is another important measure for considerations, but
                  should be treated as a separate policy proposal from
                  distribution of new IANA pool.
      
      2) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point when new IANA free
          pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".
      
          - This will lead to solution 1)
      
          - A single /8 is the minimum practical size of allocation from IANA
            to RIRs although smaller size is theoretically possible
      
          - Larger allocation size is not desirable as it artificially
            fastens the exhaustion date of certain regions
      
      3) RIRs should provide an official projection on IANA Exhaustion Date
          to the community through their website, at their Policy Meetings
          and through any other effective means.
      
          - This will lead to solution 2)
      
          - Although reliable projections by personal efforts are currently
            available, official projections provided RIRs help raise
            community awareness as well as helps ISP staff to convince their
            organization to prepare for the situation as a reliable source of
            information.
      
      4) RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria until
          the date defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".
      
          - This will lead to solution 2)
      
      
      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.
      
      - It helps LIR be better informed of the date when they are able to
         receive allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and
         prepare for the event.
      
      Disadvantages:
      
      - Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs,
         that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR
      regions.
         However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the allocation size
         to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.
      
      - 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.
      
      
      6.   Effect on APNIC members
      ----------------------------
      
      APNIC members will be able to define  a policy on how to distribute the
      last piece(s) of allocations which best matches the situation in AP
      region.
      
      APNIC members will be better informed of the date when they are able to
      receive allocations from APNIC under the current criteria, through
      official information provided by APNIC/RIRs.
      
      
      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.
      
      
      8. Additional reference
      -----------------------
      
      This proposal should be read in conjunction with a discussion paper
      which reviews RIR to LIR allocation regional policy after the IANA
      exhaustion date in Asia Pacific region.
      
      (end of document)