Hi Philip,
Kindly find reply hereunder after each part..
ãä: Philip Smith [mailto:pfs at cisco dot com] ÊÇÑíÎ ÇáÅÑÓÇá: ÇáÎãíÓ 8/16/2007 7:02 Õ Åáì: Hytham EL Nakhal äÓÎÉ: sig-policy at apnic dot net ÇáãæÖæÚ: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
Hello Hytham,
(I've snipped out the bits and pieces not directed at me - you are right, it was a very long reply of yours! :-))
Hytham EL Nakhal said the following on 12/8/07 02:16: > > How are you doing Philip? I hope you be fine. I'm sure you have a great > sympathy for this proposal (Thank you), But I've notice some > contradictions in your emails > > First, you refer to the probable disadvantage of the proposal on APNIC > which will forward the run-out time by 12 months, keeping in mind that > APNIC in that time will receive 5 /8 blocks automatic from IANA,
I wasn't aware that IANA automatically gave address blocks to the RIRs. Last I heard was that the RIRs had to make a pretty strong application case for getting another block. I meant if this proposal is applied so each RIR will take automatically 5 /8 when we reach the threshold value. so the last allocation for APNIC (for example) will not be zero but will be 5 which may be enough for one year (12 months) usage as the time being for APNIC.
> and APNIC could then manage assignment process in suitable manner as they > want. > Then you mention that APNIC & RIPE now will request smaller /8 > blocks from IANA, which will lead to delay the run-out of IP blocks … > (forward & delay) That’s one.
Umm, I never said that requesting smaller blocks will delay the run out. A tank with so much water in it has so much water, whether the tap is wide open or only trickling.
Dear Philip what do you mean by fairer distribution ? I understand it as it'll delay the run out to give a suitable time for small RIR to have more allocations , or what do you mean ?
I get the following from the mailing list archive
To: sig-policy at apnic dot net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-051: Global policy for the allocation of the remaining IPv4 address space
From: Philip Smith <pfs at cisco dot com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:43 +1000
in the last paragraph :
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.
> Regarding IPv6, All know about AfriNIC and LACNIC activities for > promoting IPv6 in their regions. You specifically have participate in > many training and workshops for IPv6 in AfriNIC region. And the best > evidence on our activities is the last press conference held by AfriNIC > and Adiel stated the AfriNIC activities toward that: AfriNIC has started > since 2005 a campaign, which will be intensified, to raise awareness on > IPv6 trough technical trainings and experience sharing events. Only 33 > Operators have IPv6 addresses allocated in Africa region. We need by > 1/1/11 to have IPv6 allocated in all countries in Africa.
Allocations are only the first small step. How many of these /32s do we actually see in the routing table today? That's the problem which people need to address.
How many you want to see where half of AfriNIC market (I mean customers for LIRs not the LIRs themselves who had apply for IPv6 addresses) are using old router versions and in same time not all applications till now fully support IPv6 and does all web sites or most of them now have dual stack servers so we can browse it using IPv6 ?
> Again as Raúl said, 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.
prop-051 proposes competition. When one shop doesn't have bread, you go to another shop to get bread. prop-51 says that AfriNIC and LACNIC can have bread for several years to come, whereas RIPE NCC, APNIC and ARIN have to have cake instead. People who don't want cake will do anything they can to get bread. Whether they go to LACNIC & AfriNIC, or go to ebay, etc... This is a given, unfortunately.
Yes, that's true .. and as i said in other mail, we have the tap in our hands.. if the community of any RIR (whom set the policies) say no for RIR shops so it's no ! and please don't say that this NIR will go and open branch at that region or something like that as I answerd it before.
> In addition to what I’ve said in last AfriNIC meeting in Abuja that if > we do that it’ll become a battle on IP addresses and it’s not the aim ..
There will be a battle, sadly. There is very little the RIRs or anyone else can do about it.
Well, So we'll not loose anything if we have agree on this proposal as there'll be a battle anyway. At least we can say that we try to avoid it but unfortunately no way.
> we aim to equal fair distribution of the remaining IPv4 pool for all RIR > … we had enough battles in many fields.. And I’d like to state it > clearly that AfriNIC doesn’t discourage any LIR from applying for IPv4 > space and use NAT instead !!!
I hope no RIR does - but then again, I know from the wider industry that many ISPs believe that the RIRs encourage the use of NAT. But that's neither here nor there for this proposal. Yes, I found a speak about encouraging NAT so I want to declare it only. > Sorry, I got confused .. Do you encourage deploying IPv6 or not ? And from > financial & investment for deploying IPv6, IMHO,
I encourage the deployment of IPv6 on existing networks, have been doing this for many years. We're going to have to live dual stack for several years to come, like it or not. Those who do not have real IPv4 addresses by the time the IPv4 pool runs out will either have to NAT or start paying big money for real IPv4 addresses.
> The implicit mean of the proposal is to prevent monopoly for bigger RIR > in selling their legacy allocated space which are not assigned > for LIRs yet, by preserving a suitable amount of /8 blocks for each RIR to > make use of it as per their own policies.
I didn't see any proposal about the RIRs selling legacy address space? Can you point to where this has been proposed, or announced?
It's a reply for the argue that this proposal if applied will encourage RIR shopping.
In the APNIC region, it is a very bad idea to imply anything in any proposal. It needs to be written out specifically - anything which is not spelled out does not happen. Noted > And for fast growing Internet market such as in South & Central Asia, and > Middle East if the allocated 5 /8 IPv4 blocks at their RIR’s > run-out they can deploy IPv6. IMHO, It’ll be fair instead of inequity for > the other slow growing market in other regions.
Sorry, I don't understand why you think it is fair for the world economy to put something to the side for the slow providers to finally get around to getting their act together. If people want to run an ISP, they should get on and do it. Up to 2010 or so, they'll get IPv4 address space (and need a really good plan of action to get IPv6 deployed as well, for their own sakes). And after that they'll get IPv6 address space from the RIRs. Same as everyone else. If they need to access the remnants of the IPv4 Internet, that's where IPv4 NAT will have to serve the need. Unless someone manages to undeprecate NAT-PT. NAT make some problems with some applications such as VPN , as far as I know if you have a VPN client on your notebook and want to connect to your VPN concentrator while you are behind NAT you should be sure that the gateway router enable IPSec traffic. > It’ll reduce pressure by preventing battle on the remaining IPv4 blocks, > and will allow RIR to focus on their policies and how to modify it if > needed for distributing the allocated blocks from IANA.
There is going to be a battle regardless. That's why I think that prop-51 is simply tinkering around the edges and is doing little to solve the real issue. ;-)
Well as saying above we'll not loose if we try to avoid it..
> That’s assuring the need for such proposal to avoid as much as we can > monopoly and exploitation. > > So it’s better to reach an equity distribution of the remaining pool.
The current distribution system is as equitable as it gets. I don't see how anyone can claim that come 2010, all 5 RIR regions will have exactly the same numbers of LIRs and exactly the same address space requirements. For sure no one can predict or know what'll be in 2010, and as you said the current on demand policy give the ability to each RIR to allocate for /8 as they market grow, so market in the developed countries which grow fast than market in developing countries can allocate for /8 as they need, then by applying this policy proposal the same current policy still applied till we reach the threshold value hence we can divide the remaining pool between RIRs in equal manner. "only the remaining" > So, what’s this suitable something in your opinion? Is it deploying of IPv6
Leave the status quo with IPv4 distribution. And encourage every single LIR to put together a sane and sober plan to deploy IPv6 in their infrastructure. and what if they can't doing that for the time being for financial issues or no market demand or the upper provider doesn't yet support IPv6 ? what will they do ? close their business ? > It’s only seeking for the fair and equal allocation of > the remaining IPv4 pool to all RIR and each RIR is free to assign its > allocated blocks according to its existing or modified policies.
I think we have agreed that my definition of fair (every LIR gets an equal chance) and the proposal's definition of fair (some LIRs get more chances than others) are different. What LIRs ? you mean RIRs ? if you mean RIR, No not each RIR have the same chance as it request for allocation depend on LIRs requests so you can't gurantee the equal chance.. it depend on market. > For example may RIR reserve part of its blocks for critical operation > assignment
What's critical operation? Who will define that? The LIRs who have the most money or influence within the RIR are the most critical? (Let's not start "what is critical" debate here.)
Yes please as you know will that the definition of critical operation make a lot of debates but we can mention two for example DNS , IXP. and who define it, each RIR community define their critical operation.
> or modify the existing assignment policy to enforce the newcomer LIR to > have IPv6 deployment before applying for IPv4..
Well, given the LIRs determine the RIR policy, I can't see LIRs voting for something like this, not currently anyway. I'm not sure of that .. as in AfriNIC mailing list I found these suggestion ! > What is the percentage of these ISPs with regard to the whole ISPs in all > RIR regions ?
Very small, but will increase markedly if prop-51 is approved globally...
So they have that a lot of money to spend on establishing new companies instead of upgrading their systems to IPv6 ?
> Let’s consider the both situations, keeping the presence on demand > IANA allocating policy and the proposed policy.. > > IANA now have about 46 /8 unallocated IPv4 blocks,
And there is a whole range of addresses outside the distinct /8 blocks in the former B space which are still vacant. About 1500 /16s the last I counted. Great that can make a room before reaching threshold > In case of on-demand policy any RIR probable allocations will ranged > from 46 blocks in best case –to- Zero blocks in the worst > case (no allocations) that depends on LIR requests during the coming > three years as statistical said IANA pool will exhaust in 2010 ..
Yup, those are the predictions.
> and > In case of the proposed policy any RIR probable allocations will ranged > from 26 blocks in best case –to- 5 blocks in worst case..…. What do you > think ?
If 5 blocks are kept for each RIR, that means 21 would be left in the free pool. Oh, you mean that each RIR can get a maximum of 26 blocks under prop-51, with N set at 5.
I mean it's possible for one RIR to get the 21 free pool in addition to the 5 allocated to it when we reach the threshold so the summ will be 26, as i said above that any RIR can get pools ranged from 46 to zero in worst case.
> Is loosing 20 blocks allocated for other RIRs in the second case is > compared with zero blocks in the worst case in the first case? > > Keeping in mind that these 20 blocks you could loose in the first case > as they could be allocated to other RIRs upon their request.. > > but in the first case you may have Zero blocks or less than the five blocks > the proposal asking for.
Say APNIC, RIPE NCC and ARIN consume round about 5 /8s per year each. If we had the 25 held for the RIRs idea, that'd leave 21 blocks. 15 /8s would give us one year, with just 6 blocks remaining after that. Divide those equally between those three RIRs. So we'd probably be 15 months from now with just the reserved /8 blocks left - which would give APNIC 15+12 months - 27 months from now to nothing left.
If we follow the current system, APNIC has 36+12 months to nothing left. I think it'll be 36 months only (46/15 ) so the difference betwen 27 & 36 is 9 months. So now you differentiate between 9 months and zero allocation. AfriNIC consumes one /8 per two years. Reserving 5 /8s for AfriNIC means that the African Internet can languish in IPv4 land for the next decade. While the rest of us have moved on. Then replace AfriNIC in the above with LACNIC. Same is true. That what we are talking about now ,you hit the point, the value of N ? Will N=2 is suitable? And then we hear that AfriNIC and LACNIC are at the forefront of encouraging their LIRs to deploy IPv6. Ya we have to do that in parallel, because we couldn't predict what will happen in the next 3 years or so. if the big Internet players move to native IPv6 so we can still reach them and don't live in isolated island. Doesn't anyone see that the proposal completely contradicts that messaging?? I don't see that as we have to work in both direction. one is to ensure that we have enough IPv4 for new comers if they asking for it and 'critical operation' and the other direction is begin to migrate step by step as our market is some how a slow so we have to begin from now.. What's the contradict in that ? we are working on what we have now keeping our eyes on the future ! is it wrong from your point of view ? I guess that's why I at least simply don't understand why the proposal is seen as something great and wonderful. I think it is the biggest tragedy that could befall the Internet in Africa and Latin America if it was globally approved.
|