Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remai
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
--