Hytham, On Aug 18, 2007, at 7:20 AM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
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.
I would be surprised if they did since those organizations can still obtain address space from the RIRs where they are doing most of their business or where their headquarters are. The question is what will happen when they can no longer obtain address space from those RIRs. I do not think those organizations are going to tell new customers "sorry, we can't get any address space from our RIR, so we don't want your money". If address space is available in regions in which they do not currently operate, they'll simply set up operations in those regions to gain access to that address space. It is relatively cheap and who knows, there might even be customers.
what is the suitable value of N?
I think 2 would have worked. 1 will also work, but I'm not sure I see the value it brings.
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.
I'm curious why you would think this. Moving the last bits of the free pool around will simply result in moving the consumers of that address space around as they follow the free pool. I don't see it having any effect on the establishment of a market which will occur very quickly after ISPs are not able to obtain address space from any registry. In fact, since N=5 accelerates the run out from the perspective of folks in ARIN, RIPE-NCC, and APNIC, it would also accelerate the establishment of a market in those regions for the smaller ISPs that can't/won't set up offices in the regions with address space.
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.
I suppose the real question is how long will the migration to IPv6 take.
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 would imagine that not all countries in Africa and Latin America have the same regulatory environment as Egypt and that there are countries in which it would be relatively easy to obtain the necessary licenses and do the required paperwork. Perhaps I'm wrong -- I'll freely admit I'm fairly ignorant of the regulatory environment in both of those regions.
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..
If it only took the ISPs to migrate to IPv6, there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is that we have to migrate the ENTIRE Internet. Say an ISP magically migrates to IPv6, converting all their network management, customer provisioning, hardware, and software to use IPv6. First problem: they'd have essentially no customers since the vast, vast majority of people have only IPv4 and have no reason to migrate. Second problem: there is essentially no Internet content available via IPv6. And since there are essentially no IPv6 users, there is no incentive for the content providers to spend the money to upgrade their infrastructure to support IPv6. Now given this, why would an ISP spend the money to migrate to IPv6 unless they are forced to by either circumstances (e.g., running out of IPv4) or mandate (e.g., government incentive or regulation)?
ISPs, by and large, do not want IPv4 addresses for themselves. They want those addresses for their customers. When they are no longer able to obtain those addresses for their customers via "traditional" means they are left with 2 options:
a) tell those customers to go away - or -b) use non-traditional methods to obtain addresses, regardless of the conformance of those methods to existing self-regulatory (RIR) policies.
Now, if you ran an ISP, which would you choose?
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 !!!
Address allocation policies are defined by the RIR communities. IANA's role in address allocation is EXTREMELY limited and very carefully prescribed in the Global Address Allocation policies. Heck, I couldn't even ask a question about the IPv6 policy without invoking the wrath of the RIR CEOs upon me.
What would you have IANA do? Regards, -drc