Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use

  • To: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] report on prop-058: Proposal to create IPv4 shared use address space among LIRs
  • From: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>
  • Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:30:35 +1100
  • Cc: Toshiyuki Hosaka <hosaka at nic dot ad dot jp>
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • List-archive: <http://mailman.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>
  • User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
    • > If this proposal reached consensus it could be presented (introduced?)
      > to the other region and/or IETF/IANA.
      >
      >    I would like to refer to the process used in the implementation of
      >    IPv6 documentation prefix. Can someone explain that process?
      
      
      I'll give it a shot (and make some related observations as well!)
      
      
      This policy proposal raises the question of the precise nature of this proposal, and in particular whether you are in fact raising a matter for IANA to act upon, in which case this may be more appropirately phrased as a Global Policy Proposal, or indeed whether this is a matter for the RIR policy process to determine or whether this is a matter for an Internet Standards action on the part of the IETF.
      
      
      The RIRs are the duly recognised address distributors of global unicast address space in their respective regions, and are the recognised body for the development of policies concerning this distribution function in their regions. The RIRs have no authority in terms of the routing system of the public internet, and have maintained the position that while they distribute address blocks they have no role in determining whether any prefix should be routed.
      
      This proposal raises a number of issues, as follows:
      
      
      One interpretation of this proposal is that it is proposing that APNIC nominate a global unicast address block and inform IANA that this block is not allocated or assigned to any particular individual or entity, but should be regarded as fully allocated in terms of APNIC reporting to IANA on address allocation levels for subsequent address allocations to APNIC from the IANA pool. For IANA to recognise this allocation as part of APNIC's allocated address pool would appear to require a change in IANA's method of measuring allocated address space. In such a case the only way I can see within the framework of the current policies that this could be effected is via a Global Policy, rather than a regional policy for APNIC.
      
      
      APNIC has no recognised mechanism to unilaterally declare a block of address space as non-routeable in the public Internet. That is a conventionally recognised role of the IANA to undertake, again leading to the observation that at the very least this should be a Global Policy for the IANA.
      
      
      However, there is an additional observation that all such declarations of address space that are reserved for private use or special purposes have been made to date on the basis of standards action of the IETF and a published RFC with explicit instructions to IANA to amend its registries to reflect the intended reservation.
      
      
      In response to your specific question the Ipv6 documentation prefix was listed by IANA ultimately in response to an IESG instruction to the IANA as part of the publication of RFC3849.
      
      
      Accordingly, it is unclear that a Global Policy alone would be sufficient for the purpose of declaring additional private use address space, and it may be the case that IANA would require an IETF action as a precondition for such a registration.
      
      regards,
      
         Geoff (speaking for myself, of course!)