[sig-policy] Report on prop-062: Use of final /8

  • To: Policy at cnnic dot cn, SIG@cnnic.cn, sig-policy at apnic dot net
  • Subject: [sig-policy] Report on prop-062: Use of final /8
  • From: "张健" <zhangjian at cnnic dot cn>
  • Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:29:47 +0800
  • 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>
  • Reply-to: 张健 <zhangjian@cnnic.cn>
    • > ________________________________________________________________________
      > 
      > prop-062: Use of final /8
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      > 
      > 
      > Dear SIG members
      > 
      > Below is a summary of discussions on the proposal to date. We encourage
      > you to continue discussions on the mailing list before APNIC 26.
      > 
      > Regards,
      > Randy and Jian
      > 
      > 
      > Proposal summary
      > ----------------
      > 
      > It is proposed that new and existing LIRs in the APNIC region be able
      > to receive a single /22 from the last /8 if they meet the current
      > allocation criteria.
      > 
      > In addition, it is proposed that a /16 be reserved from the final /8
      > for distribution for future, as yet unknown, technology requirements.
      > 
      > This proposal would only be implemented if APNIC receives a final /8
      > from IANA under the successful implementation of "prop-055: Global
      > policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space".
      > 
      > Proposals similar to this one have been submitted to the following
      > RIRs:
      > 
      >       ARIN   "2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6  
      > deployment"
      >              is currently under discussion.
      > 
      >       LACNIC "LAC-2008-04: Special IPv4 allocations/assignments reserved
      >              for new members" reached consensus at the LACNIC XI meeting
      >              in May 2008.
      > 
      > 
      > Discussion statistics
      > ---------------------
      > 
      > Posted to Policy SIG mailing list:             15 July 2008
      > 
      > Number of posts:                               30
      > 
      > Number of people participating in discussions: 9
      > 
      > 
      > Summary of discussions to date
      > ------------------------------
      > 
      > - There was concern that the total number of /22s reserved under the
      >     proposal would leave most of the final /8 unallocated for a very  
      > long
      >     time.
      > 
      >     - It was suggested that adopting the proposal, and leaving much of
      >       the last /8 unallocated, could be against APNIC By-laws, which
      >       state that APNIC's purpose is to distribute resources.
      > 
      >     - It was suggested that the proposal use the same reservation size
      >       used in the policy that reached consensus in the LACNIC region: a
      >       /12 rather than a /8.
      > 
      >     - There was discussion about the projected membership numbers over
      >       the coming years.
      > 
      >     - It was questioned whether it was necessarily unsatisfactory if  
      > part
      >       of the last /8 remained unused.
      > 
      >     - It was pointed out that networks could request IPv6 space if the
      >       /22 that would be allocated under this proposal did not meet
      >       networks' needs.
      > 
      >     - It was noted that the proposal was suggesting a form of rationing
      >       and that rationing could lead to hoarding and markets where prices
      >       are inflated by the relative scarcity of the item.
      > 
      >     - It was questioned why the distribution of the final /8 under
      >       current APNIC policies was unfair and needed to be changed.
      > 
      >     - It was suggested that it might be a good idea to reserve some IP
      >       addresses for potential future outcomes, but not as much as stated
      >       in the proposal.
      > 
      > - It was noted that the point of the proposal was to allow networks a
      >     share of the remaining IPv4 pool, not to grow their IPv4 networks,
      >     but to help networks make the move to IPV6.
      > 
      > - It was suggested that there be a proposal that tied a reserved block
      >     of final IPv4 addresses to a demonstrated plan for IPv6 deployment.
      > 
      > - It was suggested that this proposal abandons the previous principal
      >     of allocating IP addresses on the basis of demonstrated need.
      > 
      > - It was noted that it was important to let the Internet industry
      >     remain open to new entrants, and that this proposal allowed this to
      >     occur.
      > 
      > - It was suggested that there be a sunset clause for the proposed
      >     policy, after which, any unallocated addresses in the reserved block
      >     be made available under the current justified need criteria.
      > 
      > - It was suggested that to prevent LIRs opening up multiple
      >     organizations to obtain more than one /22 from the pool, that APNIC
      >     have the right to review allocations from the block and have the
      >     right to revoke allocations to multiple incorporations of the
      >     same organization.
      > 
      > - It was suggested that /22 could be too small to be used in conjunction
      >    with services such as NAT. It was suggested that /21 could be more
      >    suitable.
      > 
      > 
      > Full details of the proposal, including links to previous discussions
      > of it at earlier APNIC meetings, can be found at:
      > 
      >        http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-062-v001.html
      > 
      >