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