Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries
it's the tragedy of the americas, a few hudred years of colonialism, and it goes on.
To understand concerns in the ARIN region, I'd recommend that folks read the actual policy text and staff assessment at <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html
. Because this global policy results in significant departure from RFC2050 need-based allocation (with one equal allocation unit per RIR each 6 month period even if less than regional demand), there are challenges of equity that result from mandating the return to the IANA.
The reality is that returned address space has been going back to IANA and will continue to do under current practices; see <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/
for more information.
Thanks! /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN
Hi, On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:32:10AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
The reality is that returned address space has been going back to IANA and will continue to do under current practices; see <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/
for more information.
I think that this is a fairly important bit to comprehend the full picture. Nevertheless, we'll need to see what your membership will decide before we can decide whether there is usefulness in proceeding with our proposal... regards, Gert Doering -- APWG chair -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 141055 SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 11:32:10AM -0400, John Curran wrote:
The reality is that returned address space has been going back to IANA and will continue to do under current practices; see <http://blog.icann.org/2008/02/recovering-ipv4-address-space/
for more information.
I think that this is a fairly important bit to comprehend the full picture.
Well, this is slightly disingenuous, as IANA currently only accepts returned /8s. Part of the global policy proposal was to encourage IANA to accept smaller blocks for distribution that would otherwise be stuck with the RIR in which they were returned. Also of course, the argument that this policy does not comply with the "at need" practice currently followed by RIRs is a little shaky too. This policy only kicks in once the IANA pool is completely exhausted. All RIRs will be able to make justification for the tiny remaining dribbles of IPv4 space that this policy will generate. As noted several times today, this policy is not about usefully extending the life of IPv4. It is about showing that RIRs are able to act in a magnanimous and equitable fashion with the last remaining dregs of an irreplaceable resource. Nigel
On 08/10/2009 10:31, "Nigel Titley" <nigel@titley.com> wrote: [...]
Well, this is slightly disingenuous, as IANA currently only accepts returned /8s.
I would re-phrase that as "current policy only allows IANA to allocate to RIRs in multiples of /8". I think it's worth distinguishing between a lack of willingness and pointlessness. Until there is a policy allowing smaller allocations to RIRs there's no point in returning anything less than a /8 to the IANA free pool. Regards, Leo Vegoda Number Resources Manager, IANA
Leo Vegoda wrote:
I would re-phrase that as "current policy only allows IANA to allocate to RIRs in multiples of /8". I think it's worth distinguishing between a lack of willingness and pointlessness. Until there is a policy allowing smaller allocations to RIRs there's no point in returning anything less than a /8 to the IANA free pool.
I never meant to imply a lack of willingness on the part of IANA and am happy to accept your correction. This of course is why this policy proposal specifically addresses both return and distribution. Nigel
On Oct 8, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Nigel Titley wrote:
Also of course, the argument that this policy does not comply with the "at need" practice currently followed by RIRs is a little shaky too. This policy only kicks in once the IANA pool is completely exhausted. All RIRs will be able to make justification for the tiny remaining dribbles of IPv4 space that this policy will generate. As noted several times today, this policy is not about usefully extending the life of IPv4. It is about showing that RIRs are able to act in a magnanimous and equitable fashion with the last remaining dregs of an irreplaceable resource.
If the RIR's are drawing from the IANA pool in relatively small amounts on intervals based on their actual documented need, the runout of the IANA free pool is quickly followed by runout of available space for new ISP/NIR/LIR allocations in all regions at roughly the same time globally (this excludes consideration of the "final /8's", which may or may not be available for such allocations depending on regional policy). All RIR's running out together at the about same time is certainly "equitable". Globally, we're presently going through 10 to 12 /8's each year. Under today's policies, if one assumes that a handful of /8's were to be reclaimed through focused efforts and returned to the IANA, we'd continue allocations for few months. Post-IANA runout, this global policy sets fixed allocation sizes which will likely be less than some regions need yet larger other regions needs for years to come. This effectively insures that a subset of economies need to deal with IPv4 address depletion first. "Magnanimous" applies to such a situation, but "equitable" is a matter of perspective. The altering of IPv4 depletion impact among economies is not necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, may indeed be the right choice for the best chances of global IPv6 deployment. While the discussion of this policy has recently focused on the mandatory/optional IANA return issue that ARIN introduced, the larger implications of departing from strictly need-based policy is likely the redirection of the IPv4 depletion impact to a subset of RIRs. /John
To understand concerns in the ARIN region, I'd recommend that folks read the actual policy text and staff assessment at <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html>
Because this global policy results in significant departure from RFC2050 need-based allocation (with one equal allocation unit per RIR each 6 month period even if less than regional demand), there are challenges of equity that result from mandating the return to the IANA.
return is input to the pool which is quite different from [need based] allocation, which is output from the pool
The reality is that returned address space has been going back to IANA and will continue to do under current practices
problem is that arin's unique rewording rather blatantly hedges that for the future. randy
participants (5)
-
Gert Doering -
John Curran -
Leo Vegoda -
Nigel Titley -
Randy Bush