Re: [sig-policy] prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for the allocatio
On 03/02/2009, at 9:16 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
Dear SIG members
Version 2 of the proposal "Global policy proposal for the
allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries" 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:
It would be nice if there was a 'diff' function in the website to make
it easier to see what changes have been made between policy versions.
This new version of the proposal contains a new section, "Definitions"
inserted after section 1, "Introduction".
We encourage you to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose this proposal?
Generally speaking I think the proposal is sensible. It provides for a
cleaner way to address resource allocation (ie in the natural
hierarchical model that exists now) when demand for ipv4 creates
shortages. I like that it reduces the reliance on inter-RIR transfers,
as new comers can apply for address space, as apposed to a market-
seeking approach. Provided of course that there are resources
available in the recovered IPv4 pool.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
How this policy affects the ancillary functions surrounding the IP
One that (and there are others I'm sure) comes to mind is reverse
Is the intent of this policy to also have the in-addr.arpa delegation
for example 202.in-addr.arpa is delegated to APNIC. For the purposes
here lets say that 202.12.28/23 was handed back to the IANA at the
quarterly interval. Would the RIR then have the DNS delegation for
202.in-addr.arpa amended such that it omits that /23 enabling the
future allocated RIR to advise IANA the delegation details? And
similarly what then is the expectation for the member who receives
that address space?
Further, while the policy does limit its scope to the relationship
between the IANA and the RIR, in this hierarchical world of resource
allocation surely there would be downward pressure for the same
behaviours towards NIRs and LIRs.
I think I would like to see a policy that dovetails into this for the
remainder of the hierarchy.