Re: [sig-policy] prop-097-v002: Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 a
>
> - Section 2, "Definitions", which has been removed and all
> subsequent sections renumbered.
> - A new paragraph has been added to the beginning of section 2
> (previously 3), "Summary of the current problem", to note
> exhaustion of the IANA IPv4 pool has occurred.
> - Section 4.2 (previously 5.2) has been amended to simplify
> process for the allocation of returned IPv4 address space by
> the IANA.
> - Section 5.3 from version one of the proposal has been removed.
> - Section 4.3 (previously 5.4) has been amended to simplify
> reporting requirements.
This version is a vast improvement over the first. Well done.
> 3. Situation in other RIRs
> - ---------------------------
>
> This proposal will be submitted to all RIRs with a view to becoming
> global policy.
Can someone fill in the details on the status of this proposal in
other RIRs? I am not able to follow all five regions as closely as I
would like at all times, but I am fairly certain that I have not seen
this proposed in all five yet.
> Disadvantages:
>
> - This proposal does not provide details of how address space may
> be returned to the IANA IPv4 Recovered Pool.
One remaining disadvantage may be timing. Global policy proposals seem
to take at least one if not two or more global policy cycles. This
means that we can expect this proposal to take a year or more to get
in place. It may make more sense to simply revisit one of the existing
global policies which have already been discussed in all five regions
rather than resetting the clock completely.
Another (and possibly the largest) disadvantage is that this policy
does not address the transfer issue. By transfer issue, I mean the
ability of any RIR to change their policy regarding the transfer (and
overall distribution for that matter) of address resources at any
time. The primary reason that ARIN rejected the mandatory return
clause of prop-069 was this transfer issue and the need to uphold the
values expressed in RFC 2050 (namely needs-based resource allocation).
I understand that many likely see this omission as an advantage, I
simply wanted to point out that a good global policy in this area
probably needs to not only create a framework for re-allocation but
also facilitate returns, if it is to have any actual affect.
Cheers,
~Chris
(speaking of course as an individual and not for any organization, group, etc)
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>
--
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.theIPv6experts.net
www.coisoc.org