[sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelv

  • To: <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: [sig-policy] prop-063: Reducing timeframe of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months
  • From: "zhangjian" <zhangjian at cnnic dot cn>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 19:24:00 +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>
  • Thread-index: AcmQ8jqxLdNnJlvbSOifsCeWvIl0Wg==
    • Dear SIG members

       

      Version 2 of the proposal "Reducing timeframe  of IPv4 allocations from twelve to six months" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.

      It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 27 in Manila, Philippines, 23-27 February 2009.

       

      The proposal's history can be found at:

       

               http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-063-v002.html

       

      This new version of the proposal contains the following two changes:

       

          - A new sentence has been added to the end of section 2, "Summary

            of the current problem".

       

          - A new section 4.1, "Allocations exempted from the proposed

            policy", has been added.

       

       

      We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:

       

            - Do you support or oppose this proposal?

            - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If

              so, tell the community about your situation.

            - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?

            - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?

            - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more

              effective?

       

       

      randy and jian

       

       

      ________________________________________________________________________

       

      prop-063-v002: Reducing timeframe  of IPv4 allocations from twelve to

                      six months

      ________________________________________________________________________

       

       

      Authors:   Philip Smith

                  pfs at cisco dot com

       

                  Randy Bush

                  randy at psg dot com

       

                  Jonny Martin

                  jonny at jonnynet dot net

       

      Version:   2

       

      Date:      17 February 2009

       

       

      1.  Introduction

      ----------------

       

      This is a proposal to change the timeframe APNIC uses to make IPv4 allocations to meet LIRs' needs from twelve months to six months.

       

       

      2.  Summary of current problem

      ------------------------------

       

      APNIC currently makes IPv4 allocations to LIRs to meet their addressing needs for up to twelve months. In the IPv4 run out phase, this means that  any LIR applying for IPv4 address space will receive sufficient addresses for their projected needs for the next 12 months. With the rapidly  diminishing pool, this is very likely to cause unfair distribution of the remaining IPv4 pool. In addition, as the date of the end of the IANA IPv4 free pool approaches, having a 12 month allocation window makes less and less logical sense as it estimates usage past when there is anything left to use.

       

       

      3.  Situation in other RIRs

      ---------------------------

       

      This proposal has not been submitted to the other RIRs.

       

      AfriNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE currently make IPv4 allocations based on an LIR's estimated needs for up to twelve months.

       

       

      4.  Details of the proposal

      ---------------------------

       

      It is proposed that APNIC change the timeframe for which IPv4 allocations are made to to meet LIR's needs from twelve months to six months.

       

      This means that an organisation applying for IPv4 address space will only receive sufficient address space for their needs for the upcoming six months.  Once that six month allocation has run out, the organisation will need to apply for another six month allocation.

       

       

      4.1 Allocations exempted from the proposed policy

       

           LIRs requesting the current minimum allocation size will be exempt

           from the proposal and will continue to have a 12 month timeframe

           in which to justify need for address space.

       

       

      5.  Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal

      ------------------------------------------------

       

      5.1 Advantages

       

           - Ensures that there is a more even distribution of the remaining

             IPv4 address pool.

       

           - Ensures that organisations have a greater opportunity to

             participate in the remaining IPv4 address pool during the runout

             phase.

       

       

      5.2 Disadvantages

       

           - Organisations applying for IPv4 address space only receive

             sufficient resources for the next six months.

       

           - Organisations applying for IPv4 address space may have double

             the annual application administration to perform. APNIC

             Secretariat may also have double the administration to perform.

       

       

      6.  Effect on APNIC members

      ---------------------------

       

      The proposal impacts all APNIC members.

       

       

      7.  Effect on NIRs

      ------------------

       

      The proposal has no direct impact on NIRS, but impacts members of NIRs in the same way it impacts APNIC members.