Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to
David Conrad wrote:
[...]
>> 1. IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free
>> pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
>
> Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
>
> Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to
> IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is
> to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving
> 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s
> to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
right, thanks for clarifying.
... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR requested
for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s.
(i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1)
[...]
>> 3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion
>> Date to the community.
>
> I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official'
> projections.
Not for job security for researchers though I did like the idea :-).
We weren't actually expecting each RIR to come with their own
projections, but for them to provide latest information based on
projections already available.
(which RIRs consider as reliable)
>> 4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
>> until
>> the IANA Exhaustion Date.
>
> Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular
> clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see
> a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on
> cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the
> wall.
>
> What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need
(based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you
add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to
accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by
maintaining a consistent rule.
> I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to
> encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in
> their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as
regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
>> - Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
>
> It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough
blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis.
You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool
runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request.
This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the
available pool in their regions.
>> - What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining
>> /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
>
> Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in
> developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too
many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet
their needs.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd
be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
izumi