[sig-policy] رد: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the rema

  • To: "David Conrad" <david.conrad at icann dot org>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] رد: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
  • From: "Hytham EL Nakhal" <hytham at mcit dot gov dot eg>
  • Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:20:19 +0300
  • Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • 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>
  • References: <1162B5592E08C049B95F390D8FBF04F3025B21@MCIT-B1EXCH-01.mcit.core.local> <EBEF45E5-AAE7-473E-813F-5008A0EEA4F3@icann.org>
  • Thread-index: AcfhScuJnFfL3L6MROqrfgCSPIzvTAAR8RW6
  • Thread-topic: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
    • Title: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
      Hi David,
      It's great to hear from you..
      For the first point: you are right it's fairly small. and I think this point the RIR teams could reply for it as they have database and statistics which enable them to know whether these small minority of members are NIR or not.. for my knowledge as we deal here with FLAG, SPRINT, Teleglobe, and others international carriers which have offices in Egypt, they don't use IP addresses from AfriNIC.
      For the second point: That's a very good question, so we have a debate about the value of N, what is the suitable value of N? Do you notice that the modified version of prop-046 (version 2) which have been submitted lately to APNIC is similar to prop-051 except in the value of N which is 1 . So I think it's better to leave the value of N to be open for discussion. However, for me N=5 is suitable specially for Large RIRs like APNIC, RIPE as from IANA website you can notice that in 2005 APNIC got 3 /8 blocks, in 2006 got another 3 /8 , and in 2007 till now got 5 /8 . And for Ripe in 2005 got 3 /8 , in 2006 got another 3 /8, and in 2007  till now got 4 /8 . For ARIN in 2005 got 4 /8 and in 2006 got another 4 /8. So the year by year demand growth is clear and the average is around 3.5 /8 blocks for each RIR which lead us to expect that N=5 will be suitable to avoid secondary market specially at the critical time (when IANA announce the IPv4 run-out) when many will think about selling their IPv4 blocks for money and using NAT. At that time RIR could face this second market for a time till the market become stable & almost high percentage of members begin their transition phase to IPv6.
      For the third point: That's the role of Regulator (as I'm working for Telecom Regulatory Authority), anyone like to establish an ISP (even shell) company should get a license from TRA and this license is not allowed for foreign companies (NIR) it's only for Egyptian companies and if as you said that national large scale ISPs will pay money to become partner of the existing local ISP , I think it'll be worth for them to pay this money in upgrading their own network to support IPv6 and avoid the hassle of paper working for partnership & paying (a lot of) money for other ISP... as it'll be obvious for local ISPs that this partnership is for IP addresses no more so they'll ask for more money than they worth to make it..
      For the forth point: As i mention in second point that RIRs need time for market to become stable and know exactly how to deal with that second market, what policies they need, regulations,...etc. for sure it needs time, so for helping RIR and its members to find that time ,IMHO, IANA shouldn't leave RIRs without /8 blocks suddenly !!!
      For the fifth point: Ya, we'll need IPv6-to-IPv4 gateways and vice versa. So we do still need IPv4.. which means we couldn't say for new comers in the following three years we don't have IPv4 for you, go and use IPv6 only !!! they will live in isolated islands.. It's the role of RIR to plan  how to afford IPv4 in the next years and this proposal is aiming to help in that if it get consensus..
      I'd like to thank you for your care and following up the discussion. Cooperation between all RIRs regarding this situation of course will have its good impact on all Internet users all over the world.
      Thanks & Best Regards,

      من: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad at icann dot org]
      تاريخ الإرسال: السبت 8/18/2007 6:36 ص
      إلى: Hytham EL Nakhal
      نسخة: sig-policy at apnic dot net
      الموضوع: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space