[ppml] Policy Proposal: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs
ARIN received the following policy proposal. In accordance with the ARIN
Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process, the proposal is being
posted to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and being placed on
The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review this proposal at their next
regularly scheduled meeting. The AC may decide to:
1. Accept the proposal as a formal policy proposal as written. If the
AC accepts the proposal, it will be posted as a formal policy proposal
to PPML and it will be presented at a Public Policy Meeting.
2. Postpone their decision regarding the proposal until the next
regularly scheduled AC meeting in order to work with the author. The AC
will work with the author to clarify, combine or divide the proposal. At
their following meeting the AC will accept or not accept the proposal.
3. Not accept the proposal. If the AC does not accept the proposal,
the AC will explain their decision. If a proposal is not accepted, then
the author may elect to use the petition process to advance their
proposal. If the author elects not to petition or the petition fails,
then the proposal will be closed.
The AC will assign shepherds in the near future. ARIN will provide the
names of the shepherds to the community via the PPML.
In the meantime, the AC invites everyone to comment on this proposal on
the PPML, particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
Mailing list subscription information can be found at:
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Policy Proposal Name: End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs
Author: JPNIC IPv4 countdown policy team;
Proposal Version: 2
Submission Date: 2007/08/17
Proposal type: new
1) Distribute a single /8 to each RIR at the point when new IANA free
pool hits 5 */8. This date is defined as "IANA Exhaustion Date".
2) It should be completely left up to each RIR communities to define a
regional policy on how to distribute the remaining RIR free pool to
LIRs within their respective regions after "IANA Exhaustion Date".
Note 1: It is fine for an RIR to continue operations with the
existing policy if that is the consensus decision of the
respective RIR community.
Note 2: Address recovery and re-distribution of recovered address
space is another important measure for considerations, but
should be treated as a separate policy proposal from
distribution of new IANA pool.
3) RIRs should provide an official projection on IANA Exhaustion Date
to the community through their website, at their Policy Meetings
and through any other effective means.
There are two major issues in terms of address management if no measures
are taken for IPv4 address exhaustion.
1) Continue applying a global coordinated policy for distribution of the
last piece(s) of RIR's unallocated address block does not match the
reality of the situation in each RIR region.
Issues each RIR region will face during the exhaustion period vary by
region as the level of development of IPv4 and IPv6 are widely
different. As a result, applying a global co-ordinated policy may not
adequately address issues in a certain region while it could be work
for the others.
For example, in a region where late comers desperately need even
small blocks of IPv4 addresses to access to the IPv4 Internet, a
policy that defines the target of allocations/assignments of IPv4
address space to be late comers would be appropriate in such region.
This would allow availablilty of IPv4 address space for such
requirements for more years.
Another example comes from difference in IPv6 deployment rate.
For a region where IPv6 deployment rate is low, measures may be
necessary to prolong IPv4 address life for the existing business as
well as for new businesses until networks are IPv6 ready. Some
regions may have strong needs to secure IPv4 address space for
A globally coordinated policy which addresses all the issues listed
above to meet the needs for all RIR regions may result in not solving
issues in any of the regions.
2) LIRs and stakeholders remain unprepared for the situation if they are
If LIRs and the community are uninformed of the exhaustion, their
services and networks remain unprepared to face the situation at the
time of exhaustion.
[Objective of the proposal]
This proposal seeks to provide the following solutions to the problems
1) RIR community should be able to define their own regional policies on
how to assign the last piece(s) of allocation block in order to
address their own regional issues during the exhaustion period.
2) RIRs should provide official projection of the date when LIRs will be
able to receive the allocations under the current criteria. The
criteria should remain consistent until this date in order to avoid
[Pros and Cons]
+ It allows each RIR community to define a policy on how to distribute
the last piece(s) of allocations which best matches their situation.
+ It helps LIR better informed of the date when they are able to receive
allocations from RIRs under the current criteria and prepare for the
+ Concerns could be raised about allocating a fixed size to all RIRs,
that it artificially fastens the consumption rate of some RIR regions.
However, its impact is kept to minimum by keeping the allocation size
to a single /8 which makes merely 3-4 months difference.
+ Concerns could be raised that explicitly allowing regional policies
will encourage RIR shopping. However, this should not happen if the
requirements within each region is adequately reflected in each RIR's
policy through PDP. RIR may also chose to add criteria to prevent LIRs
from other regions submitting such requests.
Timetable for implementation:
Immediate after all 5 RIRs (and possibly ICANN) ratifies the policy.