Re: [sig-policy] prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for the allocatio
- To: APNIC Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
- Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-069-v002: Global policy proposal for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
- From: Terry Manderson <terry at terrym dot net>
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 10:35:29 +1000
- Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
- In-reply-to: <m2d4e04egq.wl%randy at psg dot com>
- List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: Terry Manderson <email@example.com>
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: http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-069-v002.html
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 address space.
One that (and there are others I'm sure) comes to mind is reverse delegations.
Is the intent of this policy to also have the in-addr.arpa delegation changed?
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.