Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IAN
> Hi Louie,
> Louis Lee said the following on 26/08/10 08:00 :
> > I apologize personally for the delay in my response. I have
> > consulted with the rest of the authors to craft the reply
> > below.
> That's okay, just means we probably end up repeating the
> discussion on the floor in a few minutes. :-(
That was my bad. :-(
> Is there an APNIC policy which says that it has to return
> unused address space to IANA?
Not that I am aware of.
John Curran did state ARIN's position for clarification to
However, for purposes of clarity, it is ARIN's practice is
to return address space to the IANA, but the ARIN community
expressed concern with making the return of space to the IANA
a mandatory policy while there are RIR's which have abandoned
needs-based allocation address policies who would also be
drawing from the returned address space pool.
This statement is not to be taken as a comment on the merits
> Okay, so it is not being divided equally between RIRs. It will
> be given to RIR regions who do not have carefully considered
> soft-landing policies.
Wouldn't ARIN's policy 2008-5 qualify as a soft-landing policy?
Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 deployment
When ARIN receives its last /8 IPv4 allocation from IANA, a
contiguous /10 IPv4 block will be set aside and dedicated to
facilitate IPv6 deployment. Allocations and assignments from
this block must be justified by immediate IPv6 deployment
Full details at:
Can we agree that ARIN has a soft-landing policy?
> As per above, those who are profligate and have no run-out
> policy stand to benefit at the expense of the others.
Already addressed by Martin's reply to you:
> > But if a new RIR just appears out of nowhere....
> Not sure what you mean here. RIRs don't appear out of nowhere,
> they are formed with their community support, and are part of
> the global community.
I suppose that a new Internet Registry that comes about from
a bid to ICANN by an organization that considers itself to be
above the RIR system wouldn't be considered a "Regional" Internet
Registry. But such a bid would certainly ask for the new IR
to be treated equally as the RIRs, if it doesn't ask for
> But banning transfers of the addresses covered by this policy
> proposal does interfere with intra-RIR transfer policies.
Also addressed by Martin's reply to you:
> > We would like to encourage the RIR's to develop inter-RIR
> > transfer policy that is fair to all regions.
> Well, you've just proposed one that transfers address space to
> RIRs who don't have good soft landing policies in places. ;-)
> For many years I was under the impression that IPv6 was where
> we eventually wanted to be, and that IPv4 is going to be phased
As much as I would also like to see IPv4 phased out, it would
likely have to come about by lack of demand.
> We've developed a soft-landing policy for our final /8 here
> in the APNIC service region (I was a co-author), designed to
> ensure that the APNIC community has sufficient IPv4 from the
> last /8 so they can fully transition to IPv6 over the coming
And in a same spirit, the ARIN community is dedicating a /10
for transition purposes.
> If organisations are giving IPv4 addresses back to APNIC
> because they no longer need them (something I don't see
> happening for many years yet), it means that the entire
> industry will have successfully completed the transition to
> IPv6. So why do we even need IPv4 addresses then?
So then this policy won't hurt if there's no demand for IPv4
addresses, right? At that point, no RIR will be in need for
new space from IANA.
One of the authors of prop-086