[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-15: IPv4 Allocation Policy for the Africa Portion of the ARIN Region

[Owen DeLong]

--On Wednesday, September 24, 2003 7:10 AM -0700 william at elan.net wrote:

>
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2003, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>
>> > I have no problem if ARIN adopts this criteria as policy for other
>> > regions.
>>
>> Then please support 2002-3.  There are three basic positions, people
>> who don't want to move the prefix size, people who want to move it
>> globally, and people who want to move it in Africa.  If the latter
>> two combine efforts behind 2003-3 it will be more likely to pass,
>> where as if they both continue both are likely to be rejected for
>> lack of support.
> I would like to highlight some differences between 2002-3 and 2002-15:
>
> 2002-3 is policy to alloe micro-assignments for ARIN region, that is
> assignments of ip space for use directly by organization (that
> organization can be ISP and use it for dialup, though as I uderstand
> which may work for African ISPs). Also note that organizations that
> received ip space under 2002 would not become members of ARIN (at least
> as  far as I understand proposal now, I would like to have ARIN staff
> respond  here if this is not true and they would be members automaticly
> with  micro-assignments).
>
That is true.  However, that is no different from end-user /20 allocations
which are also cheaper annual maintenance.  In fact, an end-user allocation
plus ARIN membership is cheaper than ISP membership.  As such, it seems
to me that this would also help African ISPs more than 2003-15 which, at
least currently, would carry the ISP fee structure.

> 2003-15 proposal would allow for smaller allocations for African region
> only, allowing those ip blocks to be used by ISPs not only for themselve
> but also allowing them to reassign portion of the block to their
> customers. Since these would be allocations, my understanding is that
> African ISPs  received ip blocks under that proposal would become members
> of ARIN
>
Ok... So, let's amend 2002-3 to encompass Allocations as well as 
Assignments.
I agree that should be fixed, although, I think Assignment would be more
beneficial to most African ISPs as described so far.

>> I care because that will be the very next question raised.  I'll
>> tell you right now that if 100 ISP's in Africa can get the allocation
>> size moved in Africa, there will be 1000 ISP's in the US who will
>> come back and say "what about me, I'm bigger then they are after
>> all, so I should be able to multi-home too".  This policy change will
>> have impact to other regions, and ARIN must consider that when it
>> makes policy.
> If we make sufficiently clear that policy is being adapted only to
> support  establishment of RIR in that region, they would understand and
> not ask.
>
Wrong.  This policy is needed globally.  There is no logical reason to
make a sub-regional exception.

>> > If you feel stongly that the US ISP in your example should be given IP
>> > space.. well, then submit a proposal.
>>
>> One is already there, 2002-3.  I support it.
> See above on differences between 2002-3 (ip space provided to end-usersk,
> not ISPs) and 2003-15 (ip space for ISPs).
>
Again... Simple amendment to 2002-3.

>> Now, that is a horse of a different color.  I had no idea allocations
>> were so fragmented across the continent (I had simply never looked
>> before), and now that I see RIPE, ARIN, and APNIC are all involved
>> I am a strong supporter of getting an AfriNIC up and running to
>> unify the process in that region.  They would of course be free to
>> set their own policies -- however
> Fully setting up RIR is not as easy as that, especially in Africa. Its
> not only policies and handling of requests but they need to have enough
> members to support the RIR financially (and for example LACNIC is getting
> funding from two regional registries in Brazil and Mexico, none of that
> exists in Africa). There are also lots of other technical,
> administration,  legal and other challenges before RIR could be ready. I
> do not think  Afrinic is anywhere close to that position and will not be
> in the next 2  years. Currently Afrinic is instead planning to setup a
> mini RIR within  RIPE and handle registrations by their personnel but
> according to RIPE  policies, but providing ip space in South Africa would
> still mean that  policies of ARIN apply there.
>
Right.  That's why I think AfriNIC is vaporware for now and we should
not set ARIN policy exceptions based on the theory that eventually AfriNIC
(whatever it may become) would possibly adopt said policy.  If ISPs in
Sub-saharan Africa want to be handled by the Afri-mini registry within
RIPE, I don't see a problem with transferring that responsibility from
ARIN to said mini-registry.  However, until that happens, I still don't
see justification for creating an exception instead of fixing the policy
for everyone.

> What I do think is that we need a special procedures for policies to be
> adapted for emerging RIRs and these should be considered completely
> separate from other policies and should be done in more formal and global
> manner. Something like that if the organization is recognized as emerging
> RIR by ASO and has established liason with ASO, then that liason can
> request certain policies for his/hers region and this request should then
> be evaluated by effected RIRs (making allocations in the region of
> emerging RIR) in a manner similar to global policy but evaluating its
> impact primarily only in how it effects the emerging RIR region. After
> policy is passed it becames policy that would only effect allocations or
> requests in that new region and only if the requests are handled through
> emerging RIR  i.e. somebody would make request to afrinic for example and
> it would then pass along request to ARIN, but policy being applied to
> request would be policy specially passed for the emerging RIR. In that
> case basicly overtime emerging RIR is able to established its own policies
> (which since its not established RIR are evaluated for their consistancy
> with some global policy document agreed by all rirs) and these policies
> only take effect for the new RIR region. After full RIR is established
> the policies ase migrated to the RIR and it can establish new policies
> without having them approved by other RIRs.
>
Respectfully, I disagree.  Once an emerging registry begins to actually 
emerge,
that regsitry can set their own policy.  Until then, whatever RIR applies
should have consistent policies.  Further, I think the assignment and 
allocation
policies of all the registries should be made more consistent with each 
other.

>> I still believe there should be
>> generally the same policy worldwide.
> That is what RIRs believe as well, since they tried to work out global
> policy for ipv6. However there are enough individual differences between
> regions that 100% same policies are not always appropriate so a more
> general framework for ip policies is better (as was provided before
> by RFC2050), this should be worked out by ASO (or NRO or whatever else
> is established as global organization for all RIRs) as global policy
> documents.
>
Yep.  However, absent that work being completed, making an exception for
Africa is just making more brokenness.  This is a good policy.  It would
be a good policy for North America.  As such, I see no reason not to make
it global.  I will vote for it as a global policy.  I will vote against
as a sub-regional exception.  I think alot more people would vote for
amending 2002-3 to encompass allocations than will vote for an African
sub-regioanl exception.  As such, I encourage African ISPs to get behind
2002-3 and recommend an ammendment to expand it to encompass allocations.

Owen