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

  • To: "sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net" <sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] رد : prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
  • From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi.palet at consulintel dot es>
  • Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 04:55:21 -0400
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <1162B5592E08C049B95F390D8FBF04F3025B2D@MCIT-B1EXCH-01.mcit.core.local>
  • List-archive: <>
  • List-help: <>
  • List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <>
  • List-post: <>
  • List-subscribe: <>, <>
  • List-unsubscribe: <>, <>
  • Reply-to:
  • Thread-index: AcfhScuJnFfL3L6MROqrfgCSPIzvTAAR8RW6AF2RtpU=
  • Thread-topic: [sig-policy] رد: prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
  • User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
      I've heard this comment in several emails the last weeks, and it is
      important to correct it.
      It is true that for the transition, the ideal situation is to have public
      IPv4 addresses, but it is not *absolutely* necessary. We can do the
      transition with just private addresses, so please, don't use that anymore as
      a rationale for supporting this kind of proposals.
      I've tried to explain this very well in a long document which I think is
      very descriptive not just about all the exhaustion mitigations but also what
      they don't provide, and by contrast, why we need to move to IPv6 even with
      private IPv4 addresses. Here is the link so people can read it:
      De: Hytham EL Nakhal <hytham at mcit dot gov dot eg>
      Responder a: <sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net>
      Fecha: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 17:20:19 +0300
      Para: David Conrad <david.conrad at icann dot org>
      CC: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
      Conversación: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the
      remaining IPv4 address space
      Asunto: [sig-policy] رد:  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
      Sorry for the slow response.
      On Aug 11, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Hytham EL Nakhal wrote:
      > David Conrad:
      >> Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that
      >> situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who
      >> probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin
      >> America and Africa. Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_
      >> stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification
      >> mechanisms, I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort
      >> of thing. Just the cost of doing business...
      > Also the same question: What is the percentage of these large ISPs
      > that have many offices in different RIR regions with regard to the
      > whole ISPs in all RIR regions ?
      Probably fairly small.  However, it is probably worth noting that the
      majority of address space at the RIRs is consumed by a small minority
      of the members.
      > and to avoid the probable second market for IP addresses it’s
      > better to insure at least 5 /8 blocks for each RIR.
      Why do you think 5 /8s for each RIR will avoid a secondary market?
      > And each RIR is capable for regulate distribution and assignment of
      > its pool in order to avoid that situation as much as possible… for
      > Egypt there is three Large ISPs has offices in other RIR than
      > AfriNICand they do use their IPs and AS they got from AfriNIC.
      I am not fully aware of the situation in Africa (nor in Latin America
      and the Caribbean), but I would be surprised to find that there
      aren't countries in which it is possible to establish shell companies
      that do little more than establish a legal presence in that country.
      Further, it doesn't even have to be a shell, it could as easily be a
      partnership with an existing company, including an established ISP.
      All it takes is a bit of money, which large scale ISPs generally have.
      > ISPs in developed countries will do whatever is necessary to obtain
      > the IPv4 to continue their business and not transit to IPv6,
      > whereas ISPs in developing countries which are less in technical
      > capabilities and face financial problems are required to transit to
      > IPv6 faster than ISPs in developed countries .. Is it the fairness
      > from your point of view ?
      No, I wouldn't consider it fair.  However, from the perspective of
      the large scale ISPs, it is just business.  In any event, the point
      I've been trying to make is that regardless of what the RIRs do, a
      secondary market will almost certainly establish itself and it would
      probably be best for the RIRs to figure out how to deal with that
      fact rather than pretending business realities don't apply.
      > Please No NAT encourage, Philip can reply better than me for NAT
      > advantages and disadvantages.. but Also NAT cost a lot of money as
      > it requires special hardware cards (expensive one) in some routers
      > to be able to do NATing
      Given IPv6 is not backwards compatible with IPv4, you'll need some
      form of network address translation to allow folks who are IPv4-only
      to talk to sites that are IPv6-only and vice versa.  The future is
      _full_ of some form of NAT.
      *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy
      sig-policy mailing list
      sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
      The IPv6 Portal:
      Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
      This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.