Re: [sig-policy] Fw: Pro-100:National IP Address Plan - Allocation of co
On Aug 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, John Mann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 22 August 2011 20:22, RAKESH MOHAN AGARWAL <ddgnt-dot at nic dot in> wrote:
> Dear All
>
> I have seen lot of comments and debate for Prop.100 and from some of the comments , it is clear some of the members are not clear about the very purpose of the proposal , so it is requested to all to kindly go through our original proposal and clarifications issued on 17/8/2011 then it will be clear to them that this proposal is not talking only of some specific countries, but taking care of all economies in the APNIC Region, as we have said in our original proposal that country wise Address block can be allocated to NIRs( For those economies those who are having NIR) and further allocation to Different organizations can be done by the NIR and of course through APNIC, keeping alignment with APNIC policy and for non NIR countries this big block can be reserved in APNIC secretariat and allocations to different organizations in that country can be done out of this big block.
>
>
> I think you and I have fundamentally different ideas about how the Internet works.
> It is not "economies" that apply / pay for / use IP addresses; it is organisations.
> It is not "economies" that advertise routes into the global routing table, make routing policy decisions, be dual homed etc; it is organisations.
>
> The Internet is not the telephone network where each countries' government created/controls a monopoly telco, the phone number plan has a leading country prefix code, and peering happens country-to-country etc etc
>
> [ See my previous message about why advertising a single whole of country IP address block won't be acceptable to users.
> I'll add one more reason -- bad things can happen when IPv4 and IPv6 routing aren't approximately the same.
> ]
>
>
> In this process all economies will be taken care of and will not be left out like in case of IPv4 era, while maintaining the control of RIRs ,This was the theme of the whole proposal . Many of the reputed members started discussions on the technicalities of the advantages, as quoted in the proposal and opposed the proposal on these grounds , It is suggested to all APNIC community members to see the theme and spirit of the proposal as explained above and work towards overall interest of all countries and organizations in APNIC region.
>
>
> Two years ago, there may have been 300 million free IPv4 addresses, and the gap between India's (current or predicted) data users and IPv4 addresses may have been about 300 million.
> Why didn't Indian ISPs apply for the some/most of the 300 million addresses?
>
> Did you see my earlier question?
>
> Q: Why didn't Indian ISPs get more IPv4 address space?
> a) they didn't know IPv4 addresses were going to run out so fast?
> b) they asked for it, but weren't granted it (insert conspiracy theory here)?
> c) they wanted to ask for it, but it was too expensive (10c per IP per year)?
> d) they planned to provide network service using NAT/proxies?
> e) other _____
>
> Have there been any reports issued analysing why India didn't get lots of IPv4 addresses?
> Any academic papers, conference presentations, or Internet Drafts?
>
> Once we know why the problem occurred, then we can look at how to prevent it happening again.
>
> For example, if the problem was
> (a) -- then better education/planning is the solution
> (b) -- then maybe the allocation policy/procedure needs changing
> (c) -- much less important now since IPv6 addresses are much cheaper than IPv4 addresses
> (d) -- maybe the ISPs will want NAT for IPv6 too, and don't need IPv6 addresses !!
> (e) -- some other solution
>
> IPv6 addresses are at least a billion times more abundant than IPv4 addresses.
> Maybe after they are 25% used up, then we could think about reserving some e.g. for ISPs that haven't been created yet.
>
> Until then, please explain what is broken about the current policy:
> a organisation creates a network plan,
> applies for IPv6 addresses based on need (or uses the 1-click apply for a /32),
> pays their annual membership+usage fee to APNIC
>
> This scheme treats all applicants equally. Assignment based on need.
> No discrimination against or for applicants from any country.
>
> Until we get some agreement about the reasons why various countries didn't get enough IPv4 addresses,
> and what problems will stop them getting enough IPv6 addresses,
> we won't make any progress on agreeing on how to solve those problem.
Hi John,
Not exactly an academic research paper, but then the empirical/historical facts are not really in dispute:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/ip_address_allocation_vs_internet_production_i_understanding_the_relationsh/
Note that this was written back in 2005, and was intended to serve as a crude "how-to" primer for aggrieved/misinformed parties, as much it was a critique of the misunderstanding itself.
For several years it was the most "widely viewed" article on CircleID, although I think it lost that distinction some time ago.
FWIW, I basically agree with your earlier "prediction," but I think it could be stated even more strongly:
Begin forwarded message:
> My prediction:
>
> If in 1996, the IPv4 address pool had been carved up into 100+ per-country allocations
> (whether based on population, or GDP, or annual technology spend ...)
> then, long before 2011, some countries' address pool would have run dry, while many others would still have lots left.
> The total of the pockets of addresses in each pool would be a very large amount (say 50% of total).
> But these addresses would be unavailable to people (in other countries) who really needed them.
>
> It would have been impossible to correctly predict in 1996 which countries would have, for example, the biggest uptake of smartphones in 2011
> and allocate pool sizes correctly back then.
If the IPv4 address pool had been allocated along national lines as described, then it seems equally plausible that recipient countries would still be holding an abundance of IPv4 addresses -- and not just today, but forevermore -- as the early, relatively geographically-concentrated Internet production/expansion booms that triggered rising global interest in the Internet participation would have never happened, or would have been dampened much sooner by the (artificial) scarcity of useful Internet addresses. Had that happened, perhaps all countries might have been spared the inconvenience and indignity of lacking the (x) hundred million IPv4 addresses required to support ubiquitous smartphone deployment -- because there would be no equivalent global e2e-style network that would have created a corresponding requirement for phones to be "smart" in the first place.
Regards,
TV