Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai

  • To: Hytham EL Nakhal <hytham at mcit dot gov dot eg>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
  • From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:02:14 +1000
  • Authentication-results: syd-dkim-1; header.From=pfs@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/syddkim1002 verified; );
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <1162B5592E08C049B95F390D8FBF04F3025B21@MCIT-B1EXCH-01.mcit.core.local>
  • 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>
  • Organization: Cisco Systems
  • References: <1162B5592E08C049B95F390D8FBF04F3025B21@MCIT-B1EXCH-01.mcit.core.local>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728)
    • 
      (I've snipped out the bits and pieces not directed at me - you are
      right, it was a very long reply of yours! :-))
      
      Hytham EL Nakhal said the following on 12/8/07 02:16:
      >
      > How are you doing Philip? I hope you be fine. I'm sure you have a great
      > sympathy for this proposal (Thank you), But I've notice some
      > contradictions in your emails
      >
      > First, you refer to the probable disadvantage of the proposal on APNIC
      > which will forward the run-out time by 12 months, keeping in mind that
      > APNIC in that time will receive 5 /8 blocks automatic from IANA,
      
      I wasn't aware that IANA automatically gave address blocks to the RIRs.
      Last I heard was that the RIRs had to make a pretty strong application
      case for getting another block.
      
      > and
      > APNIC could then manage assignment process in suitable manner as they
      > want. Then you mention that APNIC & RIPE now will request smaller /8
      > blocks from IANA, which will lead to delay the run-out of IP blocks …
      > (forward & delay) That’s one.
      
      Umm, I never said that requesting smaller blocks will delay the run out.
       A tank with so much water in it has so much water, whether the tap is
      wide open or only trickling.
      
      prop-051 will unquestionably bring the run-out forward for APNIC's
      service region.
      
      > Regarding IPv6, All know about AfriNIC and LACNIC activities for
      > promoting IPv6 in their regions. You specifically have participate in
      > many training and workshops for IPv6 in AfriNIC region. And the best
      > evidence on our activities is the last press conference held by AfriNIC
      > and Adiel stated the AfriNIC activities toward that: AfriNIC has started
      > since 2005 a campaign, which will be intensified, to raise awareness on
      > IPv6 trough technical trainings and experience sharing events. Only 33
      > Operators have IPv6 addresses allocated in Africa region. We need by
      > 1/1/11 to have IPv6 allocated in all countries in Africa.
      
      Allocations are only the first small step. How many of these /32s do we
      actually see in the routing table today? That's the problem which people
      need to address.
      
      > Again as Raúl said, It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to
      > promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated
      > pool. Right the opposite.
      
      prop-051 proposes competition. When one shop doesn't have bread, you go
      to another shop to get bread. prop-51 says that AfriNIC and LACNIC can
      have bread for several years to come, whereas RIPE NCC, APNIC and ARIN
      have to have cake instead. People who don't want cake will do anything
      they can to get bread. Whether they go to LACNIC & AfriNIC, or go to
      ebay, etc... This is a given, unfortunately.
      
      > In addition to what I’ve said in last AfriNIC meeting in Abuja that if
      > we do that it’ll become a battle on IP addresses and it’s not the aim ..
      
      There will be a battle, sadly. There is very little the RIRs or anyone
      else can do about it.
      
      > we aim to equal fair distribution of the remaining IPv4 pool for all RIR
      > … we had enough battles in many fields.. And I’d like to state it
      > clearly that AfriNIC doesn’t discourage any LIR from applying for IPv4
      > space and use NAT instead !!!
      
      I hope no RIR does - but then again, I know from the wider industry that
      many ISPs believe that the RIRs encourage the use of NAT. But that's
      neither here nor there for this proposal.
      
      > Sorry, I got confused .. Do you encourage deploying IPv6 or not ? And from
      > financial & investment for deploying IPv6, IMHO,
      
      I encourage the deployment of IPv6 on existing networks, have been doing
      this for many years. We're going to have to live dual stack for several
      years to come, like it or not. Those who do not have real IPv4 addresses
      by the time the IPv4 pool runs out will either have to NAT or start
      paying big money for real IPv4 addresses.
      
      > The implicit mean of the proposal is to prevent monopoly for bigger RIR
      > in selling their legacy allocated space which are not assigned
      > for LIRs yet, by preserving a suitable amount of /8 blocks for each RIR to
      > make use of it as per their own policies.
      
      I didn't see any proposal about the RIRs selling legacy address space?
      Can you point to where this has been proposed, or announced?
      
      In the APNIC region, it is a very bad idea to imply anything in any
      proposal. It needs to be written out specifically - anything which is
      not spelled out does not happen.
      
      > And for fast growing Internet market such as in South & Central Asia, and
      > Middle East if the allocated 5 /8 IPv4 blocks at their RIR’s
      > run-out they can deploy IPv6. IMHO, It’ll be fair instead of  inequity for
      > the other slow growing market in other regions.
      
      Sorry, I don't understand why you think it is fair for the world economy
      to put something to the side for the slow providers to finally get
      around to getting their act together. If people want to run an ISP, they
      should get on and do it. Up to 2010 or so, they'll get IPv4 address
      space (and need a really good plan of action to get IPv6 deployed as
      well, for their own sakes). And after that they'll get IPv6 address
      space from the RIRs. Same as everyone else. If they need to access the
      remnants of the IPv4 Internet, that's where IPv4 NAT will have to serve
      the need. Unless someone manages to undeprecate NAT-PT.
      
      > It’ll reduce pressure by preventing battle on the remaining IPv4 blocks, 
      >  and will allow RIR to focus on their policies and how to modify it if
      > needed for distributing the allocated blocks from IANA.
      
      There is going to be a battle regardless. That's why I think that
      prop-51 is simply tinkering around the edges and is doing little to
      solve the real issue. ;-)
      
      > That’s assuring the need for such proposal to avoid as much as we can
      > monopoly and exploitation.
      > 
      > So it’s better to reach an equity distribution of the remaining pool.
      
      The current distribution system is as equitable as it gets. I don't see
      how anyone can claim that come 2010, all 5 RIR regions will have exactly
      the same numbers of LIRs and exactly the same address space requirements.
      
      > So, what’s this suitable something in your opinion? Is it deploying of IPv6
      
      Leave the status quo with IPv4 distribution. And encourage every single
      LIR to put together a sane and sober plan to deploy IPv6 in their
      infrastructure.
      
      > It’s only seeking for the fair and equal allocation of
      > the remaining IPv4 pool to all RIR and each RIR is free to assign its
      > allocated blocks according to its existing or modified policies.
      
      I think we have agreed that my definition of fair (every LIR gets an
      equal chance) and the proposal's definition of fair (some LIRs get more
      chances than others) are different.
      
      > For example may RIR reserve part of its blocks for critical operation
      > assignment
      
      What's critical operation? Who will define that? The LIRs who have the
      most money or influence within the RIR are the most critical? (Let's not
      start "what is critical" debate here.)
      
      > or modify the existing assignment policy to enforce the newcomer LIR to
      > have IPv6 deployment before applying for IPv4..
      
      Well, given the LIRs determine the RIR policy, I can't see LIRs voting
      for something like this, not currently anyway.
      
      > What is the percentage of these ISPs with regard to the whole ISPs in all
      > RIR regions ?
      
      Very small, but will increase markedly if prop-51 is approved globally...
      
      > Let’s consider the both situations, keeping the presence on demand
      > IANA allocating policy and the proposed policy..
      > 
      > IANA now have about 46 /8 unallocated IPv4 blocks,
      
      And there is a whole range of addresses outside the distinct /8 blocks
      in the former B space which are still vacant. About 1500 /16s the last I
      counted.
      
      > In case of on-demand policy any RIR probable allocations will ranged
      > from 46 blocks in best case –to- Zero blocks in the worst
      > case (no allocations) that depends on LIR requests during the coming
      > three years as statistical said IANA pool will exhaust in 2010 ..
      
      Yup, those are the predictions.
      
      > and
      > In case of the proposed policy any RIR probable allocations will ranged
      > from 26 blocks in best case –to- 5 blocks in worst case..….  What do you
      > think ?
      
      If 5 blocks are kept for each RIR, that means 21 would be left in the
      free pool. Oh, you mean that each RIR can get a maximum of 26 blocks
      under prop-51, with N set at 5.
      
      > Is loosing 20 blocks allocated for other RIRs in the second case is
      > compared with zero blocks in the worst case in the first case?
      > 
      > Keeping in mind that these 20 blocks you could loose in the first case
      > as they could be allocated to other RIRs upon their request..
      > 
      > but in the first case you may have Zero blocks or less than the five blocks
      > the proposal asking for.
      
      Say APNIC, RIPE NCC and ARIN consume round about 5 /8s per year each. If
      we had the 25 held for the RIRs idea, that'd leave 21 blocks. 15 /8s
      would give us one year, with just 6 blocks remaining after that. Divide
      those equally between those three RIRs. So we'd probably be 15 months
      from now with just the reserved /8 blocks left - which would give APNIC
      15+12 months - 27 months from now to nothing left.
      
      If we follow the current system, APNIC has 36+12 months to nothing left.
      
      AfriNIC consumes one /8 per two years. Reserving 5 /8s for AfriNIC means
      that the African Internet can languish in IPv4 land for the next decade.
      While the rest of us have moved on.
      
      Then replace AfriNIC in the above with LACNIC. Same is true.
      
      And then we hear that AfriNIC and LACNIC are at the forefront of
      encouraging their LIRs to deploy IPv6.
      
      Doesn't anyone see that the proposal completely contradicts that messaging??
      
      I guess that's why I at least simply don't understand why the proposal
      is seen as something great and wonderful. I think it is the biggest
      tragedy that could befall the Internet in Africa and Latin America if it
      was globally approved.
      
      So, if we are all being sensible, we should let it drop and move on
      doing real things like encouraging providers to think and plan how they
      are going to remain at the forefront of the networking business after 2010.
      
      philip
      --