Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IAN
Louis Lee said the following on 26/08/10 12:23 :
>
>> 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
> Randy's concerns:
Yup, saw that. Maybe the APNIC Secretariat can clarify APNIC's
situation? I suspect it would be the same as ARIN's actually.
> Wouldn't ARIN's policy 2008-5 qualify as a soft-landing policy?
Fair point, yes, I overlooked that. So what problem are we trying to solve?
> Already addressed by Martin's reply to you:
>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2010/08/msg00119.html
Yup (I'll answer here), APNIC's carve out lasts for 16000+ resource
holders. That's many years at current rates.
How long will the ARIN region 2008-5 policy last? Perhaps not as long?
So perhaps the ARIN region should consider something that is "softer"
landing than the current policy, rather than trying to procure address
space from other RIRs via the IANA.
> 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.
That'd be my interpretation too.
> But such a bid would certainly ask for the new IR
> to be treated equally as the RIRs, if it doesn't ask for
> preferential treatment.
And they'd be outside this if the proposal is worded to be inclusive of
*regional* internet registries.
>> 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:
>
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2010/08/msg00119.html
Also replying here, knobs shouldn't be needed in policies to be randomly
twiddle as and when required. The proposal says no transfers. We have a
transfer policy in place here in APNIC service region covering all of
APNIC resource holders' holdings.
> As much as I would also like to see IPv4 phased out, it would
> likely have to come about by lack of demand.
And I'm suggesting that people aren't in a position to hand back IPv4
address space until they don't need those addresses, ie the demand has gone.
> 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.
If the policy isn't required, then why are we spending cycles proposing
it and discussing it? ;-)
philip
--