Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IAN

  • To: Policy SIG <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
  • Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IANA post exhaustion
  • From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:37:50 +1000
  • Authentication-results: sj-iport-3.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
  • Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: <m2wrsm2yzz.wl%randy at psg dot com>
  • 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>
  • Organization: Cisco Systems
  • References: <m2wrsm2yzz.wl%randy@psg.com>
  • User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.8) Gecko/20100802 Thunderbird/3.1.2
    • 
      > 1.  Introduction
      > ----------------
      > 
      > This policy defines the process for the allocation of IPv4 addresses
      > post "Exhaustion Phase" [1].
      
      Why are we trying to prolong the use of IPv4 even past the end? Just
      curious as the text doesn't say why we want/need to do this.
      
      > 3.  Summary of the current problem
      > ----------------------------------
      > 
      > With the depletion of the IANA free pool of IPv4 address space, the
      > current policy regarding the allocation of IPv4 address space to the
      > RIRs will become moot. The RIRs may, according to their individual
      > policies and procedures, recover IPv4 address space. This policy
      > provides a mechanism for the RIRs to retro allocate the recovered IPv4
      > address space to the IANA and provides the IANA the policy by which it
      > can allocate it back to the RIRs on a needs basis.
      
      Why would, and what's the incentive for, the RIRs to return IPv4 address
      space to the IANA?
      
      > This policy creates a
      > new global pool of IPv4 address space that can be allocated where it is
      > needed on a global basis without a transfer of address space between the
      > RIRs.
      
      The proposal in 5.3 says that the reclamation pool is divided equally
      amongst RIRs - which contradicts the above para.
      
      > 5.1 Reclamation Pool
      > 
      >      Upon adoption of this IPv4 address policy by the ICANN Board of
      >      Directors, the IANA shall establish a Reclamation Pool to be
      >      utilized post RIR IPv4 exhaustion as defined in Section 4. The
      >      reclamation pool will initially contain any fragments that may be
      >      left over in IANA inventory.
      
      I understood that IANA was exhausting its entire pool. Or is exhaustion
      really just complete /8s? It would be helpful if someone from IANA could
      clarify as I was under the impression that remaining fragments would be
      distributed as well, certainly before IANA declared that the cupboard
      was bare. The remaining fragments are not insignificant.
      
      > 5.3 Address Allocations from the Reclamation Pool by the IANA
      > 
      >      Allocations from the Reclamation Pool may begin once the pool is
      >      declared active. Addresses in the Reclamation Pool will be
      >      allocated on a CIDR boundary equal to or shorter than the longest
      >      minimum allocation unit of all RIRs in order to complete these
      >      allocations.
      
      "Longest minimum allocation" doesn't parse very well, and indeed the
      first two words contradict each other. Perhaps it would be clearer to
      say "smallest minimum allocation".
      
      >      The Reclamation Pool will be divided on CIDR
      >      boundaries and distributed evenly to all eligible RIRs. Any
      
      So each time when, say ARIN, pushes the button for the policy, and gets
      a /19, the other 4 RIRs will each get a /19 as well? Even if they don't
      need it? This seems an unusual method of address space distribution -
      maybe we should have thought about this at the start of IPv4 20+ years
      ago. ;-)
      
      It also means that the RIRs who have actually implemented runout
      policies (eg APNIC) for the final /8 will start stockpiling extra
      address space. Remind me what the incentive was for returning unused
      address space to IANA? This seems like a contradiction.
      
      > 5.4 RIR Eligibility for Receiving Allocations from the Reclamation Pool
      > 
      >      Upon the exhaustion of an RIR's free space pool and after receiving
      >      their final /8 from the IANA [3], an RIR will become eligible to
      >      request address space from the IANA Reclamation Pool when it
      >      publicly announces via its respective global announcements email
      >      list and by posting a notice on its website that it has exhausted
      >      its supply of IPv4 address space. Exhaustion is defined as an
      >      inventory of less than the equivalent of a single /8 and the
      >      inability to further assign address space to its customers in units
      >      equal to or shorter than the longest of any RIR's policy defined
      >      minimum allocation unit.
      
      Again "longest minimum" doesn't make a lot of sense (to me anyway).
      Also, exhaustion means "nothing left", not "1 month's supply" in the
      case of APNIC. Or "2 year's supply" in the case of AfriNIC. Etc.
      
      >      Any RIR that is formed after the ICANN
      >      Board of Directors has ratified this policy is not eligible to
      >      utilize this policy to obtain IPv4 address space from the IANA.
      
      This seems grossly unfair and unreasonable. What if, for example, a new
      RIR is formed in the Middle East. Do you seriously think that this new
      RIR should be denied any IPv4 address space at all, especially when the
      rest of the world is still trying to share IPv4 address space amongst
      the folks who too lazy to move onwards?
      
      > 5.5 Reporting Requirements
      > 
      >      The IANA shall publish on at least a weekly basis a report that is
      >      publicly available which at a minimum details all address space that
      >      has been received and that has been allocated.
      
      Don't they do this already for the existing IANA allocations? As do the
      RIRs. (I guess this is making sure that IANA doesn't stop doing it.)
      
      > 5.6 No Transfer Rights
      > 
      >      Address space assigned from the Reclamation Pool may be transferred
      >      if there is either an ICANN Board ratified global policy or globally
      >      coordinated RIR policy specifically written to deal with transfers
      >      whether inter-RIR or from one entity to another. Transfers must meet
      >      the requirements of such a policy. In the absence of such a policy,
      >      no transfers of any kind related to address space allocated or
      >      assigned from the reclamation pool is allowed.
      
      The reason for banning transfers is...?
      
      APNIC has a policy allowing transfers between account holders. I don't
      think that this policy can simply march in and take over the existing
      transfer policy proposal like this. I'd rather see a separate proposal
      covering transfers after this one gains consensus. (Or it could be done
      in parallel I suppose.)
      
      > 5.  Pros/Cons
      > -------------
      > 
      > 5.1 Advantages
      > 
      >      - The policy provides a mechanism for the ongoing distribution of
      >        IPv4 address space.
      
      Why do we need ongoing distribution of IPv4 address space? I'd have
      hoped that the policy proposal would have explained this somewhere.
      
      > 5.2 Disadvantages
      > 
      >      - None identified.
      
      See above. There are many.
      
      philip
      --