Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG but failed to reach formal consensus. Instead, it was decided to return the proposal to the mailing list for further development by the community.
Proposal details ----------------
The proposal contains four main principles:
1. IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
2. Each RIR community can define its own regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to LIRs after the IANA Exhaustion Date.
3. RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
4. RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Discussion at APNIC 24 ----------------------
Because this proposal is similar to "prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space", both proposals were discussed at the same time.
Following the discussion, there was consensus on the following principles:
- If there is to be a policy on the distribution of the last remaining IPv4 blocks to RIRs, then each RIR should be allocated one, not two, /8 blocks.
- Discussion is needed on the policy under which the last /8 would be allocated in the APNIC region.
Next steps ----------
We would like to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here are some questions that may help start discussion:
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
- Are distribution policy changes needed for the final /8 delegated to APNIC by IANA? If yes, what changes do you think are needed?
For more information on the policy proposal, see:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-046-v002.html
Toshi, Jian, and randy
Hi,
Personal comments on this proposal:
On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
The proposal contains four main principles:
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
- Each RIR community can define its own regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to LIRs after the IANA Exhaustion Date.
I would expect this.
- RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
Regards, -drc
[ not wearing co-chair hat, and not speaking for proposers. ]
- RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
job security for internet measurement researchers. don't knock it. :)
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
while i personally agree with this, i suspect this is an orthogonal issue, though one worth addressing. currently, the surface appearance is that there may be at least one rir with the opposite approach, deplete ipv4 as quickly as possible, probably with the belief that this will promote ipv6.
perhaps this section is unnecessary to the core of the proposal, and rirs should continue to have policies they see as appropriate. then all we conservatives need to do as adjust the rirs' view of 'appropriate.' :)
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
i too had not understood the rationale until the new delhi meeting. but i now think i understand the intent.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2007/09/msg00037.html
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
sounds great to me! but i think i already stuck my foot in my mouth on this one.
http://www.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2007/09/msg00038.html
randy
Hi, I've commented inline.
David Conrad wrote: [...]
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
right, thanks for clarifying.
... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR requested for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s.
(i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1)
[...]
- RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
Not for job security for researchers though I did like the idea :-).
We weren't actually expecting each RIR to come with their own projections, but for them to provide latest information based on projections already available.
(which RIRs consider as reliable)
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by maintaining a consistent rule.
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis.
You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request.
This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the available pool in their regions.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
izumi
Izumi,
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
We though a lot about this issue when we came out with our proposal, because it needs to be crystal clear for IANA. We first discussed using some integer value formulas and finally came out with the reservation idea. We did not received any comment about problems in our text and I am not very sure why you rather propose a different text than supporting the existing one with a different value for the last allocation (the only main difference).
Roque
Roques,
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
We though a lot about this issue when we came out with our proposal, because it needs to be crystal clear for IANA. We first discussed using some integer value formulas and finally came out with the reservation idea. We did not received any comment about problems in our text and I am not very sure why you rather propose a different text than supporting the existing one with a different value for the last allocation (the only main difference).
If you are refering to the formula (R * N <(X-A)) I'm personally quite happy to follow your formula for this part, but I still have to talk to the others as this is a group proposal.
I'm not sure if I follow your idea on reservation though. Are you refering to the phrase below?
------ 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. ------
izumi
Comment on drc comment 1 - There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they will only accept a max of 2 /8s. Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining 2 /8s.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: David Conrad Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
Hi, I've commented inline.
David Conrad wrote: [...]
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
right, thanks for clarifying.
... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR requested for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s.
(i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1)
[...]
- RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
Not for job security for researchers though I did like the idea :-).
We weren't actually expecting each RIR to come with their own projections, but for them to provide latest information based on projections already available.
(which RIRs consider as reliable)
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by maintaining a consistent rule.
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to
address. When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis.
You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request.
This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the available pool in their regions.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
izumi
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
Ray, would you agree that is not the case with the text that we are proposing with N=1? Roque
On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 08:45 -0400, Ray Plzak wrote:
Comment on drc comment 1 - There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they will only accept a max of 2 /8s. Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining 2 /8s.
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 8:30 AM To: David Conrad Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
Hi, I've commented inline.
David Conrad wrote: [...]
- IANA to distribute a single /8 to each RIR when the IANA free pool hits 5 /8s. This date is defined as 'IANA Exhaustion Date'.
Seems fine, although just to be explicit:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
right, thanks for clarifying.
... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR requested for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s.
(i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1)
[...]
- RIRs should provide an official projection on the IANA Exhaustion Date to the community.
I'm not sure I see the point of having 5 different 'official' projections.
Not for job security for researchers though I did like the idea :-).
We weren't actually expecting each RIR to come with their own projections, but for them to provide latest information based on projections already available.
(which RIRs consider as reliable)
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by maintaining a consistent rule.
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to
address. When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis.
You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request.
This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the available pool in their regions.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
izumi
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
Ray,
On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Ray Plzak wrote:
There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they will only accept a max of 2 /8s.
Presumably what would preclude this is the fact that the RIRs have an informal agreement to request a maximum of 2 /8s. If this informal agreement is vulnerable to breaking down, perhaps it is advisable that this 'informal agreement' be made into a more formal global policy?
Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining 2 /8s.
Indeed. And if the RIR qualifies for 6 /8s, game over a bit earlier than expected.
It would be unfortunate if the land rush anticipated by some within the ISP community was actually triggered by the RIRs.
Regards, -drc
David,
Regarding global policy on restricting RIR allocations, if you think one is needed, then there is a means to propose it.
Regarding land rush -- to some these types of global policy proposals represent a land rush "BY the RIRs" as opposed to the other one postulated of "TO the RIRs by the community". As someone recently pointed out to me the situation is akin to this:
Five vehicles: HumVee, Mercedes, small truck, tuk-tuk, motor scooter. One gas station with 46 gallons of gas. What do you do? Does it make a difference? Does the guy who delays switching to an alternative fuel gain an advantage or is he setting himself up for a hard time?
Ray
-----Original Message----- From: David Conrad [mailto:david.conrad@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 9:33 PM To: Ray Plzak Cc: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal - returning to mailing list for development
Ray,
On Sep 27, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Ray Plzak wrote:
There is nothing to preclude an RIR from requesting to get what it can justify, albeit that the RIRs have informally said that they will only accept a max of 2 /8s.
Presumably what would preclude this is the fact that the RIRs have an informal agreement to request a maximum of 2 /8s. If this informal agreement is vulnerable to breaking down, perhaps it is advisable that this 'informal agreement' be made into a more formal global policy?
Thus the following scenario is highly possible:
IANA has 6 /8s remaining; RIR qualifies for 4 /8s and decides to accept what it qualifies for; what does IANA do with the remaining 2 /8s.
Indeed. And if the RIR qualifies for 6 /8s, game over a bit earlier than expected.
It would be unfortunate if the land rush anticipated by some within the ISP community was actually triggered by the RIRs.
Regards, -drc
Just to add my contribution...
Izumi Okutani said the following on 27/9/07 22:30:
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
Well, the investors I can think of are those who will set up business (probably no more than a shell) in another RIR region just so they can get IPv4 address space for their business in the region which has no more IPv4 address space. Multinationals tend to have one RIR membership but network needs covering multiple RIR regions. So this isn't unusual.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
I think a good start would be that each RIR region should document what should happen to the last /8. Then the process can be a "if you give us a /8 we have a policy which describes what we are going to do with it". It sounds a lot more realistic than the current "give us a /8 and we promise we'll use it for special needs only". We have not defined the latter in policy anywhere. And if no policy has been defined for this /8, the fall-back position would be the existing policies, which could easily see one LIR come and gobble up the whole lot in one swoop. Meaning we have spent all this effort for nothing.
philip --
I am not sure if I follow well the idea of potential RIR shopping. Let's say we have GLOBALISP Inc, based in some (North) American big city, with a huge operation in the US and Europe; GLOBALISP also have a really small operation in, for example, Argentina. Do you really think that GLOBALISP Argentina could justify a request for a /8? If they do, how do you imagine that RIR staff would handle that justification and approve the subsequent allocation?
Best
SB
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Philip Smith wrote:
Just to add my contribution...
Izumi Okutani said the following on 27/9/07 22:30:
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
Well, the investors I can think of are those who will set up business (probably no more than a shell) in another RIR region just so they can get IPv4 address space for their business in the region which has no more IPv4 address space. Multinationals tend to have one RIR membership but network needs covering multiple RIR regions. So this isn't unusual.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
I think a good start would be that each RIR region should document what should happen to the last /8. Then the process can be a "if you give us a /8 we have a policy which describes what we are going to do with it". It sounds a lot more realistic than the current "give us a /8 and we promise we'll use it for special needs only". We have not defined the latter in policy anywhere. And if no policy has been defined for this /8, the fall-back position would be the existing policies, which could easily see one LIR come and gobble up the whole lot in one swoop. Meaning we have spent all this effort for nothing.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource managementpolicy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
Sebastian Bellagamba said the following on 27/9/07 23:32:
I am not sure if I follow well the idea of potential RIR shopping. Let's say we have GLOBALISP Inc, based in some (North) American big city, with a huge operation in the US and Europe; GLOBALISP also have a really small operation in, for example, Argentina. Do you really think that GLOBALISP Argentina could justify a request for a /8? If they do, how do you imagine that RIR staff would handle that justification and approve the subsequent allocation?
GLOBALISP could put their next global request in through their Argentinian office. What is stopping them doing this at the moment? Does LACNIC have a policy which says that LIRs who are members of other RIRs cannot get address space apart from what is going to be used in the country of operation?
It's very possible. Let's not pretend it can't or won't happen. ;-)
philip --
Best
SB
On Sep 27, 2007, at 10:14 AM, Philip Smith wrote:
Just to add my contribution...
Izumi Okutani said the following on 27/9/07 22:30:
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
Well, the investors I can think of are those who will set up business (probably no more than a shell) in another RIR region just so they can get IPv4 address space for their business in the region which has no more IPv4 address space. Multinationals tend to have one RIR membership but network needs covering multiple RIR regions. So this isn't unusual.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
I think a good start would be that each RIR region should document what should happen to the last /8. Then the process can be a "if you give us a /8 we have a policy which describes what we are going to do with it". It sounds a lot more realistic than the current "give us a /8 and we promise we'll use it for special needs only". We have not defined the latter in policy anywhere. And if no policy has been defined for this /8, the fall-back position would be the existing policies, which could easily see one LIR come and gobble up the whole lot in one swoop. Meaning we have spent all this effort for nothing.
philip
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
At 10:44 a.m. 27/09/2007, Philip Smith wrote:
Sebastian Bellagamba said the following on 27/9/07 23:32:
I am not sure if I follow well the idea of potential RIR shopping. Let's say we have GLOBALISP Inc, based in some (North) American big city, with a huge operation in the US and Europe; GLOBALISP also have a really small operation in, for example, Argentina. Do you really think that GLOBALISP Argentina could justify a request for a /8? If they do, how do you imagine that RIR staff would handle that justification and approve the subsequent allocation?
GLOBALISP could put their next global request in through their Argentinian office. What is stopping them doing this at the moment? Does LACNIC have a policy which says that LIRs who are members of other RIRs cannot get address space apart from what is going to be used in the country of operation?
LACNIC allocates addresses only to be used in the region. We have (not very often) received request for addresses to be used in the region. Maybe people don't have a right idea about the size of allocations that we do in the region. The biggest allocation that we have done is an /11 and there are very few exceptions like that.
So, receiving an allocation to sastisfy the requirements of an ISP in a developed country, will not pass unnoticed.
But, anyway, I think that this is not a very important point, because in anycase the worst scenario about this kind of behavior is just equivalent to what we have today.
Raúl
<co-chair hat on>
is the discussion of "rir shopping" not orthogonal to these proposals?
no matter what, some rir(s) will have the last unallocated ipv4 address space. and, if they are so inclined, some folk may try to cheat to get space from the last holding rir(s).
is this not utterly independent of what global policies might choose to distribute the last /8s from the iana free pool?
<co-chair hat off>
or is it that folk are not comfortable that these proposals may bias the probability of which rir(s) have the last free space to be lacnic and/or afrinic? if so, the fears i think i hear being expressed smell a bit of classism/racism/techno-colonialism.
randy
<co-chair hat on>
is the discussion of "rir shopping" not orthogonal to these proposals?
Moreover, can't RIR shopping be going on as we speak?
Roque
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
Randy,
On Sep 27, 2007, at 8:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
is the discussion of "rir shopping" not orthogonal to these proposals?
...
is this not utterly independent of what global policies might choose to distribute the last /8s from the iana free pool?
I don't think this is a question about the IANA free pool and hence global policies. I suspect the question rests on how much the other RIRs have in their free pools when the first RIR free pool goes dry.
Regards, -drc
drc,
is the discussion of "rir shopping" not orthogonal to these proposals?
...
is this not utterly independent of what global policies might choose to distribute the last /8s from the iana free pool?
I don't think this is a question about the IANA free pool and hence global policies. I suspect the question rests on how much the other RIRs have in their free pools when the first RIR free pool goes dry.
some will have a bunch. some less. no matter what we do, unless we do something really radical like taking some away and pooling at the end.
next.
randy
Philip Smith wrote:
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
Well, the investors I can think of are those who will set up business (probably no more than a shell) in another RIR region just so they can get IPv4 address space for their business in the region which has no more IPv4 address space. Multinationals tend to have one RIR membership but network needs covering multiple RIR regions. So this isn't unusual.
I see a lot of people believe this will happen, so I won't agrue against that. I would think the same risk exist for consumption based distribution though.
The issue here seems to be the difference in pace of consumption among RIRs rather than method of distribution. We would need a policy to ensure the same endpoint for all RIRs if we really want to prevent RIR shopping from happening.
izumi
Philip Smith wrote:
I think a good start would be that each RIR region should document what should happen to the last /8. Then the process can be a "if you give us a /8 we have a policy which describes what we are going to do with it". It sounds a lot more realistic than the current "give us a /8 and we promise we'll use it for special needs only". We have not defined the latter in policy anywhere. And if no policy has been defined for this /8, the fall-back position would be the existing policies, which could easily see one LIR come and gobble up the whole lot in one swoop. Meaning we have spent all this effort for nothing.
I recognize our proposal is causing concern as it seems as though we are trying to reserve a block for a "special purpose" without deciding what it is.
I understand the concern if that's the case, but we simply want to fix the mechanism for last pieces of IANA blocks. By doing this, it makes address planning for RIRs easier, whether it will be used for a special purpose or will be allocated to LIRs.
We certainly intend to come up with a proposal on distribution of last RIR (APNIC in our case) pool, but I expect it to take more time for discussions.
izumi
Hi Izumi.
On 28/09/2007, at 12:30 AM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
David Conrad wrote:
Suppose there are 6 /8s remaining in the free pool. An RIR comes to IANA and indicates they want another allocation. Current practice is to allocate 2 /8s (if justified). IANA allocates the 2 /8s, leaving 4 /8s. The obvious approach would be to allocate the remaining 4 /8s to the other 4 RIRs. Is that the intent?
right, thanks for clarifying.
... and a single /8 will be distributed to *5* RIRs if the RIR requested for 1 /8 instead of 2 /8s.
(i.e.the requesting RIR gets 2 /8s in total, remaining four RIRs get 1)
If we are going to the trouble of reserving 5x /8s now for allocation in this manner, then why not allocate these as soon as an RIR has a policy in place for it's eventual use?
Given that the basic intent of this proposal is to provide RIRs certainty of address allocation at the point that the IANA pool dries up, this approach provides even more certainty.
(Thank you Izumi and Randy for making the point of this proposal clear at APNIC24).
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution criteria
until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
Perhaps not too surprisingly, I disagree with this particular clause. By analogy, we're driving down a road at 100 KPH and we see a brick wall ahead of us. This clause requires us to put the car on cruise control and close our eyes until we're about a meter from the wall.
What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Going by road analogy, you increase confusion for drivers if you add extra rules changing from time to time, which may lead to accidents/traffic jam. Our intention is to avoid confusion by maintaining a consistent rule.
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
It isn't clear to me what problem this policy is attempting to address.
When the remaining IANA pool is 5 /8s (or less), there are not enough blocks for all RIRs on consumption basis.
You can't tell if your turn to request will come before the IANA pool runs out as it all depends on timing of your + other RIRs' request.
This makes it more difficult for RIRs to plan distribution of the available pool in their regions.
At the point that an allocation request is made that IANA can't fulfil from the free pool, uncertainty is going to exist unless that RIR is requesting a single /8. If an RIR requests 2 /8s and only receives one, what will they do? Presumably they had planned their available pool distribution based on obtaining both of these /8s. So uncertainty still exists for the RIR who makes the last allocation request.
The only benefit that this proposal offers is the guarantee that all RIRs will have at least one /8 at the point the IANA pool runs dry. It does nothing to change allocation behaviour before this point. It doesn't make allocation any more equitable between RIRs. It does nothing to incent RIRs and their members to not get greedy as we get closer to exhaustion.
I think we are best served to allocate this last pool now, then move on to putting policy in place that makes the lead-up to address depletion as fair as possible to the entire internet community.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
Given that we are talking about a time when 'free' IPv4 addresses will be at their most scarce, and given the current lack of IPv6 deployment, we have to accept that this is *will* happen. It would be irresponsible to think otherwise.
Cheers, Jonny.
Odd.
I didn't get Okutani-san's response. Apologies if I'm missing some context.
- RIRs should maintain the current address distribution
criteria until the IANA Exhaustion Date.
What is the rationale for this clause?
The idea is to ensure LIRs can receive IPv4 address space they need (based on justifications) until the last minute with minimum confusion.
Since allocation policies are defined by public policy processes, any changes to those policies would be vetted by the public so concerns about creating confusion seem a bit overblown.
On the other hand, disallowing changes in policy means you remove the ability of RIRs to adapt to the changing conditions within their regions. Not only are you turning on cruise control, you're removing the steering wheel and brake pedal.
I would think a more rational approach would be for each RIR to encourage IPv4 conservation using whatever policies make sense in their region.
That could be one approach, and this is the part we intend to discuss as regional policies after IED (presented as informational in APNIC24).
So, when the RIRs have received the last /8 from the IANA pool, only then would they be able to change allocation policies? At that point, it isn't clear to me what advantage changing allocation policies would have -- there would presumably be very little free pool left for the policies to apply to.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /
8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
Encouraging investment in developing countries by large ISPs in developed countries?
:-) I understand your point, but I imagine a single /8 won't attract too many investors. It probably won't last for more than few months to meet their needs.
How much is a few months of new customers worth?
I know quite a number of people are concerned about this point, so I'd be interested to hear more details on what people see as an issue.
Given that we are talking about a time when 'free' IPv4 addresses will be at their most scarce, and given the current lack of IPv6 deployment, we have to accept that this is *will* happen. It would be irresponsible to think otherwise.
Agreed.
More to the point, discussions about equitable distribution are likely missing the point. The reality is there is non-equitable consumption. Here at AfriNIC, there are projections that the _current_ IPv4 reserves held by AfriNIC will last until 2014. Adding another /8 to that will simply lengthen the time AfriNIC will have IPv4 addresses when ARIN, RIPE-NCC, and APNIC likely will not. This may be a good thing (in theory giving ISPs in developing countries more time to swap out hardware that can't support IPv6), however I jokingly mentioned that if you really want equitable distribution of the last of the free pool, it is likely AfriNIC will have to donate address space to the other RIRs at some point. Pragmatically speaking, these "donations" may be the result of desperate folks with money looking for address space anywhere they can get it. This might be another demonstration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Regards, -drc
David Conrad wrote:
at AfriNIC, there are projections that the _current_ IPv4 reserves held by AfriNIC will last until 2014.
good, they can use the extra 3-4 years or more, because they can least afford the ipv6 transition. and lasting longer will mean the costs should go down somewhat.
randy
More to the point, discussions about equitable distribution are likely missing the point. The reality is there is non-equitable consumption. Here at AfriNIC, there are projections that the _current_ IPv4 reserves held by AfriNIC will last until 2014.
Not exactly. Our projections said that Afrinic will exhaust the current pool( 41/8) and get another /8 from IANA before its pool be exhausted (according to: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/). And the new pool is projected to last until 2014.
cheers
--alain
More to the point, discussions about equitable distribution are likely missing the point. The reality is there is non-equitable consumption. Here at AfriNIC, there are projections that the _current_ IPv4 reserves held by AfriNIC will last until 2014.
Not exactly. Our projections said that Afrinic will exhaust the current pool( 41/8) and get another /8 from IANA before its pool be exhausted (according to: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/). And the new pool is projected to last until 2014.
... and the full text of this analysis publish back in April this year is available at:
http://www.afrinic.net/news/ipv4_exhaustion.htm
- a.
Hi Jonny,
( Sorry for spamming the ML !)
If we are going to the trouble of reserving 5x /8s now for allocation in this manner, then why not allocate these as soon as an RIR has a policy in place for it's eventual use?
Given that the basic intent of this proposal is to provide RIRs certainty of address allocation at the point that the IANA pool dries up, this approach provides even more certainty.
I would agree with your idea if the major purpose of our proposal was to reserve a block for a specific purpose, but our intention is to reduce surprise for last pieces of allocations.
It will no longer be the last piece once we allocate them first, though as I said, it would have made sense if we wanted to "reserve" a block for a certain purpose.
At the point that an allocation request is made that IANA can't fulfil from the free pool, uncertainty is going to exist unless that RIR is requesting a single /8. If an RIR requests 2 /8s and only receives one, what will they do? Presumably they had planned their available pool distribution based on obtaining both of these /8s. So uncertainty still exists for the RIR who makes the last allocation request.
That's okay because certainty we want to achive is the size of available pool for each RIR, not certainty for RIRs to receive requested size.
Once the size of available pool is fixed for each RIR, they can plan distribution to LIRs more effectively as they would know the limit of their free pool.
Surprises could happen anytime as you pointed, but RIRs would at least have a buffer of /8 to handle the situation... so I think it makes a difference from having no policy.
[snip]
Given that we are talking about a time when 'free' IPv4 addresses will be at their most scarce, and given the current lack of IPv6 deployment, we have to accept that this is *will* happen. It would be irresponsible to think otherwise.
I've replied to Philip on the same point, so I'll skip my comment here. Please see my earlier mail.
izumi
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy- bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Izumi Okutani Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 8:18 AM To: Jonny Martin Cc: Randy Bush; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-046: IPv4 countdown policy proposal -
<SNIP>
Once the size of available pool is fixed for each RIR, they can plan distribution to LIRs more effectively as they would know the limit of their free pool.
Surprises could happen anytime as you pointed, but RIRs would at least have a buffer of /8 to handle the situation... so I think it makes a difference from having no policy.
So you are suggesting that each RIR would have its free pool fixed by someone else. What precludes an RIR from determining its remaining free pool at some point and declining to request any more IPv4 address space from IANA. Planning for the depletion of the RIR pool and the policies required to administer the IPv4 space in its region after the depletion of the free space to support its current policies is a much more important and serious issue than this effort in trying to decide the value of N and everything else about these policies. The efforts of each RIR should be directed to their own situation before playing around with the IANA pool.
Ray
On 26/09/2007 8:20 p.m., Randy Bush wrote:
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
Hi Randy,
The arguments on this proposal of providing certainty are quite compelling. As an RIR I would certainly like to see that and indeed as a space user I think it addresses a real need.
You would hope that very conservative allocation criteria for the last /8(s) would then be adopted in each region.
So yes, it does solve one problem.
- What advantages are there to distributing the last remaining /8 blocks equally to the RIRs?
I'm less clear about this and there are pros and cons. On balance I think RIR should be allocated two, /8 blocks. This would provide for an extended allocation period before final exhaustion if the above mentioned "very conservative allocation criteria" are introduced.
It might even be long enough to dig us out of the hole we are heading towards.
- Are distribution policy changes needed for the final /8 delegated to APNIC by IANA? If yes, what changes do you think are needed?
Definitely yes. "very conservative allocation criteria"
Here is a suggestion.
The last one or two /8's be only allocated to those who have not had an allocation before. The initial allocation process/criteria would remain essentially unchanged.
Rational.
It puts pressure on ISP's with allocations to introduce more restrictive allocations internally and to look very hard at alternatives such as trading with other ISPs, aggressive reclamation, V6. Indeed all the things that they would do upon exhaustion but earlier.
At the same time it allows new entrants and others without V4 allocations to obtain at least some V4 space so that their business model, whatever it may be and without needing APNIC to assess it's merits, can at least be started. These new entrants would also be obliged to look at the alternatives in the same way as the existing space holders above but at least on an equal footing, i.e. from a base of having some V4 space.
The size and limitations on the initial allocation (even if these remained unchanged) would make it unlikely or at least improbable that it would be worth while to set up a whole new organiastion and join APNIC in disguise so to speak to obtain one.
Benefits
For me the worst effect of V4 exhaustion has always been that it entrenches a haves/have nots situation. No new businesses can start without a sever2e handicap (i.e. no V4 space).
This suggestion, while I am sure it has flaws, puts the pressure on established holders starting soon or very soon, while allowing new entrants to get enter into the game.
I'm sure this has holes. Feel free to point them out to me gently :)
Robert,
I am not sure if your stated goal is achievable as proposed.
On 26 Sep 2007, at 21:28, Robert Gray wrote:
[...]
You would hope that very conservative allocation criteria for the last /8(s) would then be adopted in each region.
[...]
Here is a suggestion.
The last one or two /8's be only allocated to those who have not had an allocation before. The initial allocation process/criteria would remain essentially unchanged.
[...]
The size and limitations on the initial allocation (even if these remained unchanged) would make it unlikely or at least improbable that it would be worth while to set up a whole new organiastion and join APNIC in disguise so to speak to obtain one.
Benefits
For me the worst effect of V4 exhaustion has always been that it entrenches a haves/have nots situation. No new businesses can start without a sever2e handicap (i.e. no V4 space).
This suggestion, while I am sure it has flaws, puts the pressure on established holders starting soon or very soon, while allowing new entrants to get enter into the game.
I'm sure this has holes. Feel free to point them out to me gently :)
A quick web search for company registration services in APNIC's service region suggests that it is possible to register a new company in some countries in less than half a day and for less than US$100. It also seems that the current requirements for obtaining an initial allocation are likely to be more onerous to a new entrant than to an established player with a need for additional IPv4 address space.
I am not sure whether large numbers of LIRs under a single management is a risk worth defending against, though. I suppose that depends on the value of IPv4 space and the risk posed by new market entrants. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of markets than me could comment?
Regards,
Leo Vegoda Manager, Number Resources - IANA
On 27/09/2007 9:27 a.m., Leo Vegoda wrote:
A quick web search for company registration services in APNIC's service region suggests that it is possible to register a new company in some countries in less than half a day and for less than US$100.
Hi Leo,
Certainly that is very true. In addition however the company has to join APNIC, a further $1,250 or whatever.
I agree it would be hard to stop cheats but I'd have thought it could be managed if it became a significant problem (of course lots of new members = lots of new revenue to deal with it)
It also seems that the current requirements for obtaining an initial allocation are likely to be more onerous to a new entrant than to an established player with a need for additional IPv4 address space.
Indeed it was my point (in part) that it _should_ be onerous to get an initial allocation, but not impossible (as it will become when there is no more space)
I'm posting this summary to the sig-policy mailing list to start some discussion of this proposal.
thanks,
Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-050: IPv4 address transfers -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG. The proposer did not seek a consensus call at the meeting. The proposal is being passed to the the mailing list for further development by the community and the proposal, as refined, will be submitted to APNIC 25.
Proposal details ----------------
The proposal is for APNIC to process IPv4 address transfer requests for address blocks that meet a number of criteria.
Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix may be transferred.
- The address block must be in the range of addresses administered by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address block now administered by APNIC.
- The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current APNIC account holder.
- The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks previously considered to be "historical".
Conditions on source of the transfer:
- The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
- The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24 months after the transfer.
- In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC, for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC, following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility period, the source will be required to document the reasons for the IPv4 address resource allocation.
Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
- The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held, including all transferred resources.
- APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the basis of all resources held.
Discussion at APNIC 24 ----------------------
Questions were raised regarding:
- why this policy would not extend to members of NIRs?
The proposer responded that the NIRs had not been consulted on this proposal at that time. This remains an open issue and the issues relating to transfers and NIRs does need further consideration.
It was mentioned that JPNIC is planning a special working group on considering address transfer issues and management of historical address holdings and intended to report in this activity at APNIC 25.
- why this did not apply to inter-RIR transfers?
The proposer responded that this was not being proposed as a globally coordinated policy, and was intended to be considered in the scope of APNIC.
It was suggested that the proposal be more open-ended and propose that APNIC would allow transfers with other RIRs that also allowed such transfers.
- what can we do to make this marketplace more transparent, more fair, more open and most beneficial to the Internet users and operators in general?
The proposer responded that one of the ways of showing what good behaviour in a market was to operate a market place in an exemplary fashion and lead by example rather than by exhortation.
- why does this not apply to historical resource holdings?
It was noted that there exists a process within the APNIC procedural framework to convert historical addresses to current, and this proposal does not usurp or overrule such a policy. A disposer of an historical address block would firstly need to convert the address to a current holding before this transfer policy would be applicable.
- why is this proposal limited to address blocks equal to or larger than a /24?
The proposer responded that a /24 appears to be the smallest unit of address space that we actually see as being an advertisable, useful address block. This proposal makes that leap of faith and says the minimum is a /24. It's certainly part and parcel of this process of review.
- do recipients of a transfer need to demonstrate need as per APNIC's direct allocation and assignment policies?
The proposer indicated that as the proposal stood, the only point at which the recipient has to demonstrate that particular requirement of eligibility to me is at the point in time that they come back to APNIC for a direct IPv4 allocation, in which case all of their holdings, including those obtained by transfer, are then assessed by the policy.
Following the discussion, there was clear support to continued discussion of this proposal
Next steps ----------
It would be very helpful to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here are some questions that may help start discussion:
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
- Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
- Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are such risks unacceptable?
- Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or assignment?
- How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
For more information on the policy proposal, see:
Geoff,
I'm responding to the question posted at the end.
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
Yes (by avoiding issues in the future) There will be a need for a trading market and there will be serious issues if it is not structured correctly from the start.
- Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
Absolutely - The framework needs to up and going well before exhaustion.
- Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are such risks unacceptable?
Yes - Trading will happen anyway. There will be no way of ensuring ownership before or after transfer without involvement of APNIC.
- Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or assignment?
No - My understanding is APNIC is simply trying to facilitate the transaction in an open market. To require qualification implies APNIC are trying to regulate the market. (not the intent of the policy)
- How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
This policy should apply to all members of APNIC.
- Other comments (added)
The 24 month hiatus is too long as market conditions can change quickly. Otherwise there will be a reluctance to release addresses to the market and this will drive the price up. Alternatively (or additionally) the original sale amount (+ fees & interest) be paid to APNIC before the member can apply for new allocation.
Nick Hannaford
-----Original Message----- From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston Sent: Friday, 28 September 2007 12:48 PM To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-050: IPv4 address transfers - passed to mailing list for development
I'm posting this summary to the sig-policy mailing list to start some discussion of this proposal.
thanks,
Geoff
----------------------------------------------------------------------- prop-050: IPv4 address transfers -----------------------------------------------------------------------
This proposal was presented at the APNIC 24 Policy SIG. The proposer did not seek a consensus call at the meeting. The proposal is being passed to the the mailing list for further development by the community and the proposal, as refined, will be submitted to APNIC 25.
Proposal details ----------------
The proposal is for APNIC to process IPv4 address transfer requests for address blocks that meet a number of criteria.
Conditions on the IPv4 address block:
- Only IPv4 address blocks equal to, or larger than, a /24 prefix may be transferred.
- The address block must be in the range of addresses administered by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address block now administered by APNIC.
- The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current APNIC account holder.
- The address block will be subject to all current APNIC policies from the time of transfer. This includes address blocks previously considered to be "historical".
Conditions on source of the transfer:
- The source entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The source entity must be the currently registered holder of the IPv4 address resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.
- The source entity will be ineligible to receive any further IPv4 address allocations or assignments from APNIC for a period of 24 months after the transfer.
- In making any future IPv4 address resource requests to APNIC, for as long as IPv4 address resources are available from APNIC, following the expiration of this 24 month ineligibility period, the source will be required to document the reasons for the IPv4 address resource allocation.
Conditions on recipient of the transfer:
- The recipient entity must be a current APNIC account holder.
- The recipient entity of the transferred resources will be subject to current APNIC policies. In particular, in any subsequent APNIC IPv4 address allocation request, the recipient will be required to account for all IPv4 address space held, including all transferred resources.
- APNIC fees payable by the recipient will be assessed on the basis of all resources held.
Discussion at APNIC 24 ----------------------
Questions were raised regarding:
- why this policy would not extend to members of NIRs?
The proposer responded that the NIRs had not been consulted on this proposal at that time. This remains an open issue and the issues relating to transfers and NIRs does need further consideration.
It was mentioned that JPNIC is planning a special working group on considering address transfer issues and management of historical address holdings and intended to report in this activity at APNIC 25.
- why this did not apply to inter-RIR transfers?
The proposer responded that this was not being proposed as a globally coordinated policy, and was intended to be considered in the scope of APNIC.
It was suggested that the proposal be more open-ended and propose that APNIC would allow transfers with other RIRs that also allowed such transfers.
- what can we do to make this marketplace more transparent, more fair, more open and most beneficial to the Internet users and operators in general?
The proposer responded that one of the ways of showing what good behaviour in a market was to operate a market place in an exemplary fashion and lead by example rather than by exhortation.
- why does this not apply to historical resource holdings?
It was noted that there exists a process within the APNIC procedural framework to convert historical addresses to current, and this proposal does not usurp or overrule such a policy. A disposer of an historical address block would firstly need to convert the address to a current holding before this transfer policy would be applicable.
- why is this proposal limited to address blocks equal to or larger than a /24?
The proposer responded that a /24 appears to be the smallest unit of address space that we actually see as being an advertisable, useful address block. This proposal makes that leap of faith and says the minimum is a /24. It's certainly part and parcel of this process of review.
- do recipients of a transfer need to demonstrate need as per APNIC's direct allocation and assignment policies?
The proposer indicated that as the proposal stood, the only point at which the recipient has to demonstrate that particular requirement of eligibility to me is at the point in time that they come back to APNIC for a direct IPv4 allocation, in which case all of their holdings, including those obtained by transfer, are then assessed by the policy.
Following the discussion, there was clear support to continued discussion of this proposal
Next steps ----------
It would be very helpful to hear your opinions on this proposal. Here are some questions that may help start discussion:
- Is this proposal addressing a real need or problem?
- Should such a proposal be adopted prior to the anticipated point of exhaustion of the IPv4 unallocated address pool?
- Are there risks in not adopting this policy, or something similar? Are such risks unacceptable?
- Should transfers require qualification of the recipient to need to demonstrate a need in the same fashion as a direct allocation or assignment?
- How should this relate to NIRs and members of NIRs? Are NIRs bound to operate under asn APNIC transfer policy, if adopted by APNIC?
For more information on the policy proposal, see:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-050-v001.html
* 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
Activity Summary
- 5832 days inactive
- 5832 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 15 participants
- 31 comments