Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear SIG members
The proposal "Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29 August - 7 September 2007.
I invite you all to review the proposal below and send comments to the mailing list before APNIC 24.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-051-v001.html
Regards, Toshi --- Toshiyuki Hosaka Policy SIG Chair
________________________________________________________________________
prop-051-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Roque Gagliano , ANTEL Francisco Obispo, CENIT Hytham EL Nakhal, MCIT Didier Allain Kla, ISOC Cote d'Ivoire
Version: 1
Date: 26 July 2007
1. Introduction ---------------- In order to assure the equal distribution of the IPv4 address space across RIR regions, this policy proposal describes a process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the existing RIRs.
2. Summary of current problem ------------------------------
The IANA pool is decreasing rapidly. The current "on demand" policy in a way rewards who uses the most addresses and maintaining. As more addresses are allocated, a rush to monopolize the allocation of addresses from IANA is possible.
3. Situation in other RIRs ----------------------------
LACNIC: This proposal reached consensus at LACNIC X meeting and is awaiting Board approval.
AFRINIC/RIPE/ARIN: The prooposal proposal is being submitted to all regions.
4. Details of the proposal ----------------------------
Policy Statement:
This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (/8s) will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.
In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, at the time it is adopted, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (N units) will be reserved by IANA for each RIR. The number N is defined as: 5. The reserved allocation units will no longer be part of the available space at the IANA pool. The process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is divided in two consecutives phases:
1. Existing policy phase:
During this phase IANA will continue allocating IPv4 addresses to the RIRs using the existing allocation policy. This phase will continue until a request for IPv4 address space from any RIR to IANA cannot be fulfilled with the remaining IPv4 space available at the IANA pool.
This will be the last IPv4 address space request that IANA will accept from any RIR. At this point the next phase of the process will be initiated.
2. Exhaustion phase:
IANA will automatically allocate the reserved IPv4 allocation units to each RIR (N units to each one) and respond to the last request with the remaining available allocation units at the IANA pool (M units).
2.1. Size of the final IPv4 allocations:
During this phase IANA will automatically allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space defined in this policy. IANA will also allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 addresses.
2.2. Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address space:
After the completion of the evaluation of the final request for IPv4 addresses, IANA must:
A) Immediately notify the NRO about the activation of the second phase of this policy.
B) Proceed to allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 address space.
C) Proceed to allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space.
5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal -------------------------------------------------
Advantages:
- It eliminates the pressure on the central pool.
- It allows each RIR to approve new policies for the allocation of their remaining space.
- It allows the discussion of the concept of the policy first and the size of the final allocation later.
Disadvantage:
- Concerns have been raised regarding the address blocks that will be kept at smaller RIRs (particularly LACNIC and AFRINIC). However, at the actual address consumption rate, to open those blocks (10 x /8) would only represent a 12-month extension of the exhaustion date for the bigger RIRs.
6. Effect on APNIC members ----------------------------
APNIC will continue receiving IPv4 allocation units by the current policy until the central pool reachs 25 x /8. At that time APNIC and the rest of the RIR will receive its last 5 x /8.
7. Effect on NIRs -------------------
No effect.
(end of document)
For the record, I don't support this policy proposal as it is basically unfair.
The problem for our region is that it brings the timeline of run out of address space for APNIC forward by a good 12 months, meaning just over 2 years of IPv4 space left.
Entities will set up business in Latin America or Africa, even just a frontage, so they can apply for IPv4 address space from LACNIC or AfriNIC.
Think of other real world situations: fuel shortages for example. Do you queue to fill your car at a filling station which has run out of fuel? No, you drive to the one that still has fuel, and you'll find ways around any artificial rules that station implements.
As I said at the AfriNIC meeting a few months ago, it would be better if LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members (e.g. like ARIN Board did re IPv6) to get their real IPv4 address space now, rather than continuing on their journey of make believe that NAT somehow solves all their problems. If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of them running out first less of a likelihood.
In any event, I believe at least RIPE NCC and APNIC are requesting smaller IPv4 /8 blocks from the IANA now, which goes a long way to ensuring the fairer distribution of what is becoming a limited resource.
philip --
Toshiyuki Hosaka said the following on 26/7/07 15:26:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29 August
- 7 September 2007.
I invite you all to review the proposal below and send comments to the mailing list before APNIC 24.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-051-v001.htmlRegards, Toshi
Toshiyuki Hosaka Policy SIG Chair
prop-051-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Roque Gagliano , ANTEL Francisco Obispo, CENIT Hytham EL Nakhal, MCIT Didier Allain Kla, ISOC Cote d'Ivoire
Version: 1
Date: 26 July 2007
- Introduction
In order to assure the equal distribution of the IPv4 address space across RIR regions, this policy proposal describes a process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the existing RIRs.
- Summary of current problem
The IANA pool is decreasing rapidly. The current "on demand" policy in a way rewards who uses the most addresses and maintaining. As more addresses are allocated, a rush to monopolize the allocation of addresses from IANA is possible.
- Situation in other RIRs
LACNIC: This proposal reached consensus at LACNIC X meeting and is awaiting Board approval.
AFRINIC/RIPE/ARIN: The prooposal proposal is being submitted to all regions.
- Details of the proposal
Policy Statement:
This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (/8s) will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.
In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, at the time it is adopted, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (N units) will be reserved by IANA for each RIR. The number N is defined as: 5. The reserved allocation units will no longer be part of the available space at the IANA pool. The process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is divided in two consecutives phases:
Existing policy phase:
During this phase IANA will continue allocating IPv4 addresses to the RIRs using the existing allocation policy. This phase will continue until a request for IPv4 address space from any RIR to IANA cannot be fulfilled with the remaining IPv4 space available at the IANA pool.
This will be the last IPv4 address space request that IANA will accept from any RIR. At this point the next phase of the process will be initiated.
Exhaustion phase:
IANA will automatically allocate the reserved IPv4 allocation units to each RIR (N units to each one) and respond to the last request with the remaining available allocation units at the IANA pool (M units).
2.1. Size of the final IPv4 allocations:
During this phase IANA will automatically allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space defined in this policy. IANA will also allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 addresses.2.2. Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address space:
After the completion of the evaluation of the final request for IPv4 addresses, IANA must: A) Immediately notify the NRO about the activation of the second phase of this policy. B) Proceed to allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 address space. C) Proceed to allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space.Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
It eliminates the pressure on the central pool.
It allows each RIR to approve new policies for the allocation of their remaining space.
It allows the discussion of the concept of the policy first and the size of the final allocation later.
Disadvantage:
- Concerns have been raised regarding the address blocks that will be kept at smaller RIRs (particularly LACNIC and AFRINIC). However, at the actual address consumption rate, to open those blocks (10 x /8) would only represent a 12-month extension of the exhaustion date for the bigger RIRs.
- Effect on APNIC members
APNIC will continue receiving IPv4 allocation units by the current policy until the central pool reachs 25 x /8. At that time APNIC and the rest of the RIR will receive its last 5 x /8.
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
(end of document)
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Philip
At 05:14 a.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
For the record, I don't support this policy proposal as it is basically unfair.
I think that what is unfair is your assumption about LACNIC.
The problem for our region is that it brings the timeline of run out of address space for APNIC forward by a good 12 months, meaning just over 2 years of IPv4 space left.
Entities will set up business in Latin America or Africa, even just a frontage, so they can apply for IPv4 address space from LACNIC or AfriNIC.
Think of other real world situations: fuel shortages for example. Do you queue to fill your car at a filling station which has run out of fuel? No, you drive to the one that still has fuel, and you'll find ways around any artificial rules that station implements.
As I said at the AfriNIC meeting a few months ago, it would be better if LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members (e.g. like ARIN Board did re IPv6)
Obviously you are not aware of LACNIC activities, but we have already done it.
to get their real IPv4 address space now, rather than continuing on their journey of make believe that NAT somehow solves all their problems.
Also.
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of them running out first less of a likelihood.
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool. Right the opposite.
Raúl
On 26 jul 2007, at 13.18, Raul Echeberria wrote:
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of them running out first less of a likelihood.
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool. Right the opposite.
Well, while the RIRs traditionally have had conservation and aggregation as their main goals with their policies, that to me is not the same as encouraging the use of NATs. I think that what Philip is hinting at (not that I want to put words in his mouth) is that the current use of NATs and double NATs will over time show to be a hinderance in deploying new technology and services. When providers in regions with less assigned IPv4-space/Internet user develops and providers want to deploy new technology, getting the needed IPv4 space might turn out to be to late.
The question of stewardship of the reming free pool is orthogonal to the question of getting rid of NATs and securing current deployments. To do the latter LIRs should be encouraged to seek the IPv4 addresses they will need (actually probably does) for their customers. IF the RIRs are concerned about the allocation pace, that is regulated by policy - not by discouraging people from applying for IPv4 space.
Oh, and I second Philips non support for this policy proposal.
- kurtis -
At 11:38 a.m. 26/07/2007, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
On 26 jul 2007, at 13.18, Raul Echeberria wrote:
If some of the LIRs in those two regions converted from NAT and double NAT to using real IPv4 addressing, both LACNIC and AfriNIC would receive more IPv4 /8 blocks sooner, making the chance of them running out first less of a likelihood.
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool. Right the opposite.
Well, while the RIRs traditionally have had conservation and aggregation as their main goals with their policies, that to me is not the same as encouraging the use of NATs.
It is very clear. In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
I think that what Philip is hinting at (not that I want to put words in his mouth) is that the current use of NATs and double NATs will over time show to be a hinderance in deploying new technology and services. When providers in regions with less assigned IPv4-space/Internet user develops and providers want to deploy new technology, getting the needed IPv4 space might turn out to be to late.
We have campaigning always against the use of NAT in the region and I think that we have succeed in that sense.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
But I only wanted to point out that it is not about LACNIC or Afrinic, so saying LACNIC and/or Afrinic shoud do "something" is a wrong approach to the discussion.
Raúl
Hi Raul,
Raul Echeberria said the following on 27/7/07 03:04:
It is very clear. In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Do RIRs promote the use of real IP addresses instead of NAT? (Open question, I don't really know the answer.) All I know is that I interact with many ISPs from around the world who believe that NAT is their only option, and believe that RIR membership is only for the biggest ISPs or not for them, etc. Usually without even having checked the facts. :-(
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
Completely agree.
Plus there is a body of opinion with the belief that IPv6 isn't the solution to the problem and that NAT is. We might see forces pulling in two directions... I've even had people ask me if they can "sell" their IPv4 address space when it becomes valuable in the next year or two and use NAT instead.
But I only wanted to point out that it is not about LACNIC or Afrinic, so saying LACNIC and/or Afrinic shoud do "something" is a wrong approach to the discussion.
Agreed also. Everyone needs to do something, but I think we need to really figure out what this "something" is. I don't think prop-51 is it, unfortunately.
philip --
At 08:44 p.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
Hi Raul,
Raul Echeberria said the following on 27/7/07 03:04:
It is very clear. In fact I don't think that
any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Do RIRs promote the use of real IP addresses instead of NAT? (Open question, I don't really know the answer.)
Yes, in our case (LACNIC) the answer is Yes.
I don't want to become involved in the specific discussion about this proposal, at least by now, and in fact I didn't say any thing in favor or against it. My only intention was to point out that this is not a problem between LACNIC region and for instance APNIC region. This discussion needs of a global perspective.
Just discuss the merits or the problems of the policy itself.
Raúl
Raul,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin America and Africa. Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_ stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification mechanisms, I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort of thing. Just the cost of doing business...
Rgds, -drc
P.S. It might also be argued that the paradox you note could be a blessing in disguise as it means those in developing countries will make the shift to IPv6 that much sooner.
At 08:32 p.m. 29/07/2007, David Conrad wrote:
Raul,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
This is a byzantine discussion and I guess that we agree regarding the use of NAT.
What it is interesting and in fact a paradox, is that probably the use of NAT will be increased in developing countries when regional pools become exhausted because most ISPs will not have the economic power for compiting for IPv4 addresses in a possible market while others ISPs continue accessing IPv4 addresses.
Indeed, but it isn't clear to me how this proposal helps that situation. The ISPs with the most power are also the ones who probably already have offices/subsidiaries/partners/etc. in Latin America and Africa.
This is something that should be answered by the proposal's authors.
Unless AfriNIC and LACNIC become _extremely_ stringent on membership and invest heavily in verification mechanisms,
Why not ? good point. But not only that. Other measures will be necessaries in the future too for avoiding or limiting the RIR shopping. And this is something that should be done by all the RIRs due to the fact that nobody know which one will be the first in running out of IPv4 addresses (if one). And it not depends only in the distribution of the unallocated pool, but also on the regional policies for dealing with the last part of the regional stocks in each region.
The discussion should include, but not limited to, the ideas behind your proposal of "soft landing".
I don't see the larger ISPs even blinking at this sort of thing. Just the cost of doing business...
Rgds, -drc
P.S. It might also be argued that the paradox you note could be a blessing in disguise as it means those in developing countries will make the shift to IPv6 that much sooner.
This is something similar to say that developing countries will be the firts ones in shifting to ethanol based cars because they will not have oil. But so, we will have to produce our own cars, and it will be of course more expensive than buying the cars produced for the big mass. Shifting to IPv6 is an objective and of course, it is probably more important for developing countries since they have less margin for speculating, and of course we are working very mucha on that and spending large amount of resources as we have been doing for the last 4-5 years, but the main objective for all of us should be, IMHO, a non traumatic transition to IPv6 worldwide.
Raúl
Raul Echeberria wrote:
Other measures will be necessaries in the future too for avoiding or limiting the RIR shopping.
and we, the users, want to limit rir shopping, why? it may be the only, albeit teesnie, bit if market competition there is in the rir monopoly game.
some may see one good thing about the iana ipv4 free pool run out as the creation of an actually visibly competitive market in address space.
randy
At 02:24 p.m. 30/07/2007, Randy Bush wrote:
Raul Echeberria wrote:
Other measures will be necessaries in the future too for avoiding or limiting the RIR shopping.
and we, the users, want to limit rir shopping, why? it may be the only, albeit teesnie, bit if market competition there is in the rir monopoly game.
some may see one good thing about the iana ipv4 free pool run out as the creation of an actually visibly competitive market in address space.
You are ritght. Some may think in that way.
Raúl
Raul Echeberria wrote:
At 08:32 p.m. 29/07/2007, David Conrad wrote:
Raul,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
This is a byzantine discussion and I guess that we agree regarding the use of NAT.
Paradoxically, the use of NAT in IPv4 is about to become very critically important to IPv6, I'd suggest.
Most of the "transition" plans we have seen so far for this transition to an IPv6 network pass through this intermediate stage of dual stack deployment. The basic idea is that what is required for a V4 host initiate, maintain and close a "conversation" with a V6 host and vice-versa goes well beyond the conventional mode of packet protocol header substitution, and efforts to perform various permutations of protocol header translators, DNS manipulations and application level gateways all appear to have their dark and ugly side in terms of cost, deployment complexity, service fragility and fractured application transparency.
So, with help from various forms of tunnelling support to bridge over any protocol-specific transport continuity gaps, the basic idea of this transition is that we enter an extended period where hosts need to use V4 to talk to V4 hosts and V6 to talk to V6 hosts. As long as hosts first try the V6 handshake, then, so goes the line of reasoning, we should see the traffic mix in this dual stack tend to move to v6 as the legacy V4 infrastructure migrates to V6, and the dual stack nature of the deployment means that dual stack hosts can fall back to V4 to speak to V4 legacy infrastructure.
Nice plan, as far as it went.
Of course the assumption behind this transition was that we'd get moving with this V6 transition while there was still ample V4 addresses to fuel the continued growth of this dual stack world, or, minimally, to fuel a NAT'ted version of the V4 world, and that we'd be done before anything seriously hit the wall of exhaustion. Some years back this probably seemed like a sensible assumption.
But the real question we face now is: "How do we support the growth of the V4 part of this dual stack Internet with a looming exhaustion of the V4 unallocated address pool?"
V4 NATs may well be very important components of this forthcoming dual stack transitional world, like it or not.
regards,
Geoff
Raul,
On Jul 30, 2007, at 7:17 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
At 08:32 p.m. 29/07/2007, David Conrad wrote:
Raul, On Jul 26, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Raul Echeberria wrote:
In fact I don't think that any RIR promote the use of NAT.
Historically, NAT use hasn't needed promotion.
I guess that we agree regarding the use of NAT.
Perhaps, but the question was whether the RIRs should promote NAT.
As the IPv4 free pool exhausts, I suspect more and more people will come to the pragmatic realization that public addresses are only absolutely required for providing externally reachable services and that the vast majority of clients can make do sitting behind NATs. If RIRs were to encourage the use of NAT in such cases, the demand on the remaining IPv4 free pool would be lessened, thereby extending the runway for IPv6 deployment and (assuming NAT is the evil many say it is), encouraging that deployment.
Rgds, -drc
hi David,
my response bellow,
regads.
P.S. It might also be argued that the paradox you note could be a blessing in disguise as it means those in developing countries will make the shift to IPv6 that much sooner.
The problem with this, is that there isn't a transition method that allows IPv6-only networks to connect to the IPv4 world, so until there's a way to do that, this isn't going to happen.
The proposal's spirit, is to give each RIR the opportunity to develop their own transition plan, it can be restrictive or super- restrictive, I think this is up to the community.
This policy affects the outcome on how many /8s are finally assigned after the pool has exhausted. Of course some may benefit, some not, but we have already a precedence, in a case where a region would benefit and decided to turn down a proposal (IPv4 HD-Ratio).
Even IANA benefits from the proposal, so I think we should concentrate on the size of the final allocation, which has been the main drawback.
-francisco
Hi Raul,
Raul Echeberria said the following on 26/7/07 21:18:
At 05:14 a.m. 26/07/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
For the record, I don't support this policy proposal as it is basically unfair.
I think that what is unfair is your assumption about LACNIC.
Not sure I follow.... What assumption?
As I said at the AfriNIC meeting a few months ago, it would be better if LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members (e.g. like ARIN Board did re IPv6)
Obviously you are not aware of LACNIC activities, but we have already done it.
to get their real IPv4 address space now, rather than continuing on their journey of make believe that NAT somehow solves all their problems.
Reading all the way to the end of my sentence, you will see that I said that it would help if LACNIC and AfriNIC made it very clear to their members that NAT is not a solution. (As I hope the other 3 RIRs are also doing - but I see NAT and double NAT as rife across those two regions, even more so than in APNIC's region.)
LACNIC has announced, as per ARIN, that the IPv4 pool available from IANA is going to run out in the next three or so years (paraphrasing the statement). This isn't the same. ;-)
It is not LACNIC's objective. We don't want to promote a competition for getting IPv4 addresses from the unallocated pool. Right the opposite.
Well, the proposal will promote a competition. In times of crisis, which those folks without an IPv6 business plan will be in, they will do anything and everything possible. As humankind does in any similar situation.
Don't get me wrong, I have great sympathy for the proposal, but it is unrealistic and unimplementable.
philip --
Hi Philip, here are some comments.
The problem for our region is that it brings the timeline of run out of address space for APNIC forward by a good 12 months, meaning just over 2 years of IPv4 space left.
Just the opposite. APNIC probably will receive its last allocation from IANA 12 month earlier. However, those addresses will then be part of the APNIC pool. Depending on APNIC policies on how to sub-allocate those addresses you will get the date of the real exhaustion of resources at that region. I am persuade RIR will have more conservative policies for these last address blocks and maybe they may never be fully sub-allocated.
Entities will set up business in Latin America or Africa, even just a frontage, so they can apply for IPv4 address space from LACNIC or AfriNIC.
Two things, first big address consumption ISPs at the bigger RIR regions will not base their business plans on the possibility of getting addresses at LACNIC or AFRINIC, they will transit to IPv6. Second, I believe RIR staff do a good job digging into companies files in order to be sure that the allocation is correct. I can tell by personal experience that I had have to present even equipment invoices to get anything bigger than a /18.
Think of other real world situations: fuel shortages for example. Do you queue to fill your car at a filling station which has run out of fuel? No, you drive to the one that still has fuel, and you'll find ways around any artificial rules that station implements.
You are missing that at the bigger RIR there are huge amount of legacy allocations and unallocated space that will be fueling a secondary address market. Companies in less developed part of the world will have zero influence at this market.
In any event, I believe at least RIPE NCC and APNIC are requesting smaller IPv4 /8 blocks from the IANA now, which goes a long way to ensuring the fairer distribution of what is becoming a limited resource.
That is a gentlemen agreement not a policy. However you are not considering one of the biggest benefits of this policy. It release the pressure on the central IANA pool allowing each RIR to focus on their own policies. I contrast with the Countdown policy I believe this one is simpler and its implementation is straight forward.
Roque
philip
Toshiyuki Hosaka said the following on 26/7/07 15:26:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be presented at the Policy SIG at APNIC 24 in New Delhi, India, 29 August
- 7 September 2007.
I invite you all to review the proposal below and send comments to the mailing list before APNIC 24.
The proposal's history can be found at:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-051-v001.htmlRegards, Toshi
Toshiyuki Hosaka Policy SIG Chair
prop-051-v001: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space ________________________________________________________________________
Author: Roque Gagliano , ANTEL Francisco Obispo, CENIT Hytham EL Nakhal, MCIT Didier Allain Kla, ISOC Cote d'Ivoire
Version: 1
Date: 26 July 2007
- Introduction
In order to assure the equal distribution of the IPv4 address space across RIR regions, this policy proposal describes a process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the existing RIRs.
- Summary of current problem
The IANA pool is decreasing rapidly. The current "on demand" policy in a way rewards who uses the most addresses and maintaining. As more addresses are allocated, a rush to monopolize the allocation of addresses from IANA is possible.
- Situation in other RIRs
LACNIC: This proposal reached consensus at LACNIC X meeting and is awaiting Board approval.
AFRINIC/RIPE/ARIN: The prooposal proposal is being submitted to all regions.
- Details of the proposal
Policy Statement:
This policy describes the process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space from IANA to the RIRs. When a minimum amount of available space is reached, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (/8s) will be allocated from IANA to each RIR, replacing the current IPv4 allocation policy.
In order to fulfill the requirements of this policy, at the time it is adopted, an identical number of IPv4 allocation units (N units) will be reserved by IANA for each RIR. The number N is defined as: 5. The reserved allocation units will no longer be part of the available space at the IANA pool. The process for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 space is divided in two consecutives phases:
Existing policy phase:
During this phase IANA will continue allocating IPv4 addresses to the RIRs using the existing allocation policy. This phase will continue until a request for IPv4 address space from any RIR to IANA cannot be fulfilled with the remaining IPv4 space available at the IANA pool.
This will be the last IPv4 address space request that IANA will accept from any RIR. At this point the next phase of the process will be initiated.
Exhaustion phase:
IANA will automatically allocate the reserved IPv4 allocation units to each RIR (N units to each one) and respond to the last request with the remaining available allocation units at the IANA pool (M units).
2.1. Size of the final IPv4 allocations:
During this phase IANA will automatically allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space defined in this policy. IANA will also allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 addresses.2.2. Allocation of the remaining IPv4 Address space:
After the completion of the evaluation of the final request for IPv4 addresses, IANA must: A) Immediately notify the NRO about the activation of the second phase of this policy. B) Proceed to allocate M allocation units to the RIR that submitted the last request for IPv4 address space. C) Proceed to allocate N allocation units to each RIR from the reserved space.Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
Advantages:
It eliminates the pressure on the central pool.
It allows each RIR to approve new policies for the allocation of their remaining space.
It allows the discussion of the concept of the policy first and the size of the final allocation later.
Disadvantage:
- Concerns have been raised regarding the address blocks that will be kept at smaller RIRs (particularly LACNIC and AFRINIC). However, at the actual address consumption rate, to open those blocks (10 x /8) would only represent a 12-month extension of the exhaustion date for the bigger RIRs.
- Effect on APNIC members
APNIC will continue receiving IPv4 allocation units by the current policy until the central pool reachs 25 x /8. At that time APNIC and the rest of the RIR will receive its last 5 x /8.
- Effect on NIRs
No effect.
(end of document)
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Hi Roque,
Roque Gagliano said the following on 26/7/07 22:03:
The problem for our region is that it brings the timeline of run out of address space for APNIC forward by a good 12 months, meaning just over 2 years of IPv4 space left.
Just the opposite. APNIC probably will receive its last allocation from IANA 12 month earlier.
That's exactly what I said. ;-)
However, those addresses will then be part of the APNIC pool. Depending on APNIC policies on how to sub-allocate those addresses you will get the date of the real exhaustion of resources at that region. I am persuade RIR will have more conservative policies for these last address blocks and maybe they may never be fully sub-allocated.
Where do the RIR policies come from? The membership.
So this proposal basically says to APNIC members "hey, give up one year's worth of /8s so that LACNIC & AfriNIC don't have to worry about IPv4 space for another 3 or 4 years hence". Where is the advantage for the APNIC membership? Why would APNIC members request APNIC to change allocation policies, and what to?
Two things, first big address consumption ISPs at the bigger RIR regions will not base their business plans on the possibility of getting addresses at LACNIC or AFRINIC, they will transit to IPv6.
The former is very possible. The latter still sees a lot of business needing persuading to make the investment.
Second, I believe RIR staff do a good job digging into companies files in order to be sure that the allocation is correct. I can tell by personal experience that I had have to present even equipment invoices to get anything bigger than a /18.
Yes; there are currently many organisations who have RIR membership in more than one region. If they need more IPv4 address space, they will apply for it. Not doubting the RIR staff for a second, but we can't assume for a second that applicants won't be creative.
So let's not given them any reason to be creative - a uniform global "run-out" ensures that people can't be creative, and that they then can only consider IPv6 as part of their business model moving forwards.
You are missing that at the bigger RIR there are huge amount of legacy allocations and unallocated space that will be fueling a secondary address market. Companies in less developed part of the world will have zero influence at this market.
I didn't see this discussed in the policy proposal. Besides, I don't see how a legacy allocation market is going to help a newcomer. The Internet is growing very quickly in South and Central Asia, the Middle East etc. Or are they all meant to spend e-bay prices to get address space transferred?
Geoff's policy proposal, if approved and implemented, will mean that IPv4 address space can be transferred within APNIC. The logical next step would be a policy proposal which will then allow IPv4 address space to be transferred between LIRs belonging to different RIRs.
That is a gentlemen agreement not a policy.
I'd suggest it would be more sensible for the RIR membership to propose this as a policy for each RIR.
However you are not considering one of the biggest benefits of this policy. It release the pressure on the central IANA pool allowing each RIR to focus on their own policies.
I don't see this at all. How would it reduce pressure? And how would it allow the RIR (and presumably the RIR membership) focus on their own policies? What would be needed to be focused on?
Best wishes!
philip --
Roque,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Roque Gagliano wrote:
Two things, first big address consumption ISPs at the bigger RIR regions will not base their business plans on the possibility of getting addresses at LACNIC or AFRINIC, they will transit to IPv6.
No they won't. They will do whatever is necessary to obtain the IPv4 address space they need to continue business.
You appear to be assuming the primary reason people haven't migrated to IPv6 is because IPv4 is easily available. I do not believe this to be the case. People haven't migrated because:
a) customers don't want IPv6 (nor do they want IPv4 -- they want "the Web"/their pr0n, they don't care about the details).
b) migrating to IPv6 has real costs and because of (a), there are no additional revenues to cover that cost.
c) they _can't_ migrate because their equipment/software vendors don't yet support IPv6.
d) etc.
Rearranging where the IPv4 free pool sits isn't going to help things all that much (although it might remove IANA as the target for lawyers, thanks! :-)). Large scale ISPs have the resources to set up offices in Latin America and Africa (and the resources, far more than those NICs do, to bury the NICs under paperwork to justify their requests). The folks who will lose are the smaller ISPs in the regions served by the larger NICs who lack those resources. The winners will be those with lots of IPv4 addresses.
Rgds, -drc
David, here my answers
On Jul 29, 2007, at 8:15 PM, David Conrad wrote:
Roque,
On Jul 26, 2007, at 5:03 AM, Roque Gagliano wrote:
Two things, first big address consumption ISPs at the bigger RIR regions will not base their business plans on the possibility of getting addresses at LACNIC or AFRINIC, they will transit to IPv6.
No they won't. They will do whatever is necessary to obtain the IPv4 address space they need to continue business.
You appear to be assuming the primary reason people haven't migrated to IPv6 is because IPv4 is easily available. I do not believe this to be the case. People haven't migrated because:
a) customers don't want IPv6 (nor do they want IPv4 -- they want "the Web"/their pr0n, they don't care about the details).
b) migrating to IPv6 has real costs and because of (a), there are no additional revenues to cover that cost.
c) they _can't_ migrate because their equipment/software vendors don't yet support IPv6.
d) etc.
I agree, even if ISP do migrate to IPv6 there is not content there. So, we will have a double stack scenario for several years/decades.
Rearranging where the IPv4 free pool sits isn't going to help things all that much (although it might remove IANA as the target for lawyers, thanks! :-)). Large scale ISPs have the resources to set up offices in Latin America and Africa (and the resources, far more than those NICs do, to bury the NICs under paperwork to justify their requests). The folks who will lose are the smaller ISPs in the regions served by the larger NICs who lack those resources. The winners will be those with lots of IPv4 addresses.
In any scenarios with lack of access to IPv4 address smaller ISPs will be more affected, what if we just follow the current policy? What we are saying is lets just let everybody know how we are going to split the remaining of the central pool, so each region can understand how will they be affected. If the problem is the size of the last allocation (the number N), we could discuss that too.
Rgds, -drc
------------------------------------------------------------- Roque Gagliano ANTEL - URUGUAY rgaglian@antel.net.uy
Activity Summary
- 5900 days inactive
- 5900 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 9 participants
- 18 comments